RE: [sv-ec]e-mail Ballot: Closes 11:59pm PDT, Tuesday April 22 2008

Thanks Jonathan for updating the proposal based on Stu's friendly
amendments. It appears that the core of the proposal is un-altered,
hence it should not cause those who voted to change their votes.
However, if anyone who has voted on this proposal feels that they need
to change their vote, please do so by end of today, April 22 2008.  
The updated proposal is   proposal-2279-jb3a.pdf
  http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2279 

- Mehdi

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Stuart Sutherland
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:02 PM
To: 'Jonathan Bromley'; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec]e-mail Ballot: Closes 11:59pm PDT, Tuesday April 22
2008

I change my vote to yes.  Thanks, Jonathon, for making the friendly
amendments.  These were all nits, and don't change the technical aspects
of
the proposal, so, in my opinion, no re-vote should be needed.


Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bromley
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec]e-mail Ballot: Closes 11:59pm PDT, Tuesday April
22
> 2008
> 
> Stu,
> 
> > I will change my vote to yes if the following friendly
> > amendments are made to the proposal:
> >
> > 1) The proposal needs to show that the existing production in
> > Syntax 17-9 is
> > being deleted.  (It is being deleted, right?)
> 
> See Shalom's comment - I think this is already covered.
> 
> > 2) The BNF changes to Syntax 17-9 for randomize_call needs to
> > include the
> > footnote being added to the same production in Annex A.
> 
> Likewise, I agree with Shalom here - 17-9 describes a specific
> usage of the more general syntax, and in that specific usage
> the Note is irrelevant.
> 
> > 3) The title to Syntax 17-9 be changed from "... (note in Annex A)"
> to
> > "...(excerpt from Annex A).
> 
> I'm sorry, I ducked out of that one by noting "and change caption
> accordingly" - leaving it to your judgement.  In fact I think it would
> be best simply to delete mention of Annex A in the caption, since the
> relationship is explicit in comments in the (new) body of the syntax
> box.
> So I'd suggest the caption be changed to simply
>   Syntax 17-9 - Inline constraint syntax
> 
> > 4) The BNF changes to the subroutine_call production also
> > need to be made in Syntax 13-3.
> 
> Agreed; sorry, I completely missed that.  New proposal 3a
> uploaded to implement this, and make the new caption
> for Syntax 17-9 explicit.  Are the changes small enough
> that people's votes can stand?
> 
> 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.
> 



-- 
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 and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.