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

My votes:

 

 Section a)

 

 412  _X__ Yes   ___ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000412        

 

 516  _X__ Yes   ___ No     

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000516        

 

 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  _X__ Yes   ___ No     

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000519        

 

 520  _X__ Yes   ___ No     

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000520        

 

 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  _X__ Yes   ___ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000974        

 

 

  Section b)

 

 958  _X__ Yes   ___ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000958        

 

 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              ___ Yes   _X__ No  

   The argument passing syntax for specifying binding is problematic. No
other construct uses

   this name binding feature. Do the names need to exist in the class
scope or is it an error

   to provide an un-used name? What about expressions such as "super.x"
?

   I will change my vote to "yes" if the proposal is limited to
providing the alternative 

   search semantics that bypasses the target object and starts the
search in the local scope.

 

  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 

   Not backwards compatible.

   I will change my vote to "yes" if this behavior is triggered by a
different syntax.

 

 2137  ___ Yes   _X__ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137

This is not needed - not in this section, which describes structured
procedures, not function 

activation. It adds more confusion.

Assertions already stipulate that functions and methods may be called at
the end of a sequence 

match. Assertions also support procedural operations such as assignment
and increment.

Action blocks *are* procedural - that should be stated in section 16.14.

 

 2181  _X__ Yes   ___ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002181        

 

 2227  _X__ Yes   ___ No  

 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002227        

 

 


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