RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 2279 (randomize syntax feedback)

Mehdi
 
Unfortunately I'm on vacation this week and out of reach of editing tools :-(
I completely agree with Shalom's suggestion - apologies for the oversight 
in the original proposal.  I'll try to  update the proposal later today but
I probably won't be able to create a PDF. 

Thanks
-- 
Jonathan
 
--Original Message----- 
From: Mehdi Mohtashemi [mailto:Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com] 
Sent: ב 4/14/2008 8:12 PM 
To: Jonathan Bromley 
Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM 
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 2279 (randomize syntax feedback)



	Hi Jonathan,
	In today's sv-ec meeting we discussed mantis 2279 and
	Shalom's proposal to make a change to the proposal.
	It was generally agreed that this change was ok, however,
	everyone wanted to see the properly updated proposal before
	re-approving this.
	Would it be possible for you to update the proposal with
	suggestion from Shalom, then I will setup an email vote
	for mantis 2279, so that we can have it ready for the
	champions' meeting next week on April 24th.
	thanks,
	- Mehdi
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
	Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:18 PM
	To: sv-ec@eda.org
	Subject: FW: [sv-ec] Mantis 2279 (randomize syntax feedback)
	
	Hi,
	
	Mantis 2279 Proposal 2a was approved by SV-EC on March 25.
	Unfortunately, only now were the minutes circulated and the Mantis
	updated.
	
	I sent the following mail on the 26th, pointing out a problem with
	proposal 2a. If this will not be corrected, I will have to vote against
	this at the champions level.
	
	Regards,
	Shalom
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:14 AM
	To: Jonathan Bromley
	Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 2279 (randomize syntax feedback)
	
	Hi,
	
	I'd like to propose a small change to version 2a.
	
	The text in 17.7 is currently:
	
	The syntax for randomize()...with is as follows:
	
	inline_constraint _declaration ::=
	        class_variable_identifier . randomize [ ( [
	variable_identifier_list | null ] ) ]
	                with constraint_block
	
	Syntax 17-9-In-line constraint syntax (not in Annex A)
	
	The class_variable_identifier is the name of an instantiated object.
	
	=======
	
	The proposal says:
	
	REPLACE contents of syntax box 17-9 (in clause 17.7) with this text
	taken from A.8.2, and update the caption to reflect this change:
	
	randomize_call ::=
	        randomize { attribute_instance }
	                [ ( [ variable_identifier_list | null ] ) ]
	                [ with [ ( [identifier_list] ) ] constraint_block ]
	
	======
	
	The problem is that it is then not clear that this randomize_call is
	used as a class method, and the following paragraph, "The
	class_variable_identifier is the name of an instantiated object,"
	becomes an orphan.
	
	So I propose the following:
	
	inline_constraint _declaration ::=
	// not in Annex A
	        class_variable_identifier . randomize_call
	
	randomize_call ::=
	// from A.8.2
	        randomize { attribute_instance }
	                [ ( [ variable_identifier_list | null ] ) ]
	                [ with [ ( [identifier_list] ) ] constraint_block ]
	
	Syntax 17-9-Inline constraint syntax (not in Annex A)
	
	The class_variable_identifier is the name of an instantiated object.
	
	======
	
	Thanks,
	Shalom
	---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Intel Israel (74) Limited
	
	This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
	the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
	by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
	recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
	
	
	--
	This message has been scanned for viruses and
	dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
	believed to be clean.
	
	
	


-- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.