Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST December 15 2007

Here's my votes:

--Mike
>
>  Section a)
> CLOSE following mantis items, covered by 1702
>  412  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000412        
>
>  516  ___ Yes   _x__ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000516        
>
>   
516 should really be related to 1447; 1702 doesn't really apply.
>  517  _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000517        
>
>  518  _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000518        
>   
>  518  ___ Yes   ___ No
      ^^^^ Wrong! should be
      519  _x__ Yes   ___ No
>      
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000519        
>   
Note that this is a "yes" vote to close 519, not 518. The original 
ballot text above says 518, but the link is to 519 and 518 is already 
another item in this vote.
>  520  ___ Yes   _x__ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000520        
>   
The comments in the example code of 7.11.1 "Queue operators" should be 
changed to not explain the operations in terms of append, prepend, 
insert and delete since these operations have different semantics w.r.t. 
outdating of references.
>  521  _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000521        
>
>  522  _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000522        
>
>  801  _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000801        
>
>  974  ___ Yes   _x__ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000974        
>  
>   
974 is addressed by 1447, not 1702.
>   Section b)
>       958, 1447,
>      1858 [contains two proposals:
>               1858-randomize_with_syntax.htm]
> 	        1858_local.pdf
>      2055, 2137, 2181 2227 
>
>
>  958  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000958        
>   
I think a related errata should be filed, in that an 
array_dimension_function cannot in general return a meaningful result 
for a dynamically sized dimension whose dimension expression is not 1.
>  1447  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001447        
>  
>  1858  [Multiple proposal files]
>   1858-randomize_with_syntax.htm       _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>   1858_local.pdf                       _x__ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001858        
>   
>  2055  ___ Yes   _x__ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002055
Same reason as others - no new proposal since last vote.
>  
>  2137  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137        
>  
>  2181  ___ Yes   ___ No  _x__ Abstain
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002181 
Lack of time and interest for randsequence.

>  2227  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002227        
>  
>
>
> section a) 
>      412 5.14.1 Queue operator examples use aggregate constructors
> incorrectly
>      522 use of concatenation in 5.14.2 (Francoise)
>      521 pattern assignment for queues (Francoise)
>      520 example of queues assignment (Francoise)
>      519 section 5.14,empty array literal syntax (Francoise)
>      518 queues and arrays (Francoise)
>      517 concatenation syntax usage section 5.14 (Francoise)
>      516 5.7 and 5.8 description of type compatible arrays
>      801 Errors in assignment pattern in 5.4 example
>      974 comparison of dynamic arrays/queues to 1-dimensional fixed
> arrays 
>
> section  b)
>     1858 Name binding in inline constraints 
>          two separate proposals
>     1447 Contradictory stmts about unsized array dimensions (5.1 vs. 5.7
> and 5.8) 
>      958 dynamic array size method unclear when empty
>     2055 coverage bin distribution is not even
>     2137 Some assertion contexts should be procedural
>     2181 Ambiguity implicit declaration of production variables in
> randsequence 
>   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.