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

hi EC (and Don),

Again I'm teaching at the time of the phone-in today so
can't make it, sorry.

I'll try here to reply to some of the queries re. 
closing children of 1702, and 958:

[Don]
> >  516  ___ Yes   __x_ No     
> >  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000516
>   First line of description in 1702:   "This issue comes to group 
> together the queue syntax issues 412, 517-521, 801:"
> 516 is on arrays and is not directly related to queues as 
> discussed in 1702.

Indeed. When I was first working on 1702 it also tried to address
some of these array issues.  I then exported the problem to Mike
Burns since his 1447 proposal was more directly relevant.  So, to
this and a few other similar comments from others, I would say:
agreed that these are no longer addressed by 1702, but they *are*
addressed by 1447.  Since that's very much "in hand", I would have
thought that it would make sense to close the older items anyway,
as being subsumed in 1447.

[Don]
> >  522  ___ Yes   _x__ No     
> >  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000522
> Jonathan - is 522 also covered in 1702?  It is not listed as 
> one of the 
> items in the description.  It is possible that it is 
> indirectly covered 
> by all the other items listed, but I just want to check with 
> you first.  
> If it is, I will change my vote to yes.

I would say "yes"; I thought I had included it in the list but
obviously it slipped my net - sorry.

[Don]
> >  974  ___ Yes   _x__ No  
> >  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000974        
> >   
>   First line of description in 1702:   "This issue comes to group 
> together the queue syntax issues 412, 517-521, 801:"
>   974 is on arrays and is not directly related to queues as 
> discussed in 1702.

I *think* it is; 1702 makes the unpacked-concat syntax equally
applicable to any unpacked array (except associative).  Also,
1447 generalises the ability to copy any non-associative unpacked
array to any other.


   Mike B.:
      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.

Agreed; that was an oversight.  Can we live with it as an erratum,
since there are other definitive statements now that cover the
situation?


  Neil:
        I reviewed the 958-2.pdf of Dec 14th
        Note that on page 2 of the proposal there is the 
        following sentence fragment shown in black text, 
        which is not part of the current
        LRM. I would like to see this removed from the proposal.
           "If any of these functions is called with arguments 
           (v, n) where v denotes some array variable and n 
           is a dimension number greater than 1,"

My apologies, that's a copy/paste error (similar text appears
in blue further down the page).  However, please note that the
vote is on proposal 958-1a.pdf; the changes in version 2 were
to answer Mike Burns's concerns about non-unique dimensions.
I'll make the correction to version 2 later today.

THanks
-- 
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                   Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web: http://www.doulos.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

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