Re: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6

Hi Arturo,

Yes, please do.

Neil



Arturo Salz wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> 
> Thanks for the message - I mistakenly missed today's meeting due to an
> email malfunction.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you. The problem is precisely the indentation, which
> made it look as if the auto-bins were the constituents of the
> user-defined bin i_zero. I understood what David wrote but forgot to
> attach a proposal to the Mantis I created. The equivalent text you write
> below seems like a very nice way to resolve this issue. Should I add
> this as an official proposal?
> 
> 	Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:33 PM
> To: David Scott
> Cc: Arturo Salz; SV_EC List
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6
> 
> Hi Arturo,
> 
> We breifly discussed this point in the sv-ec conference call this
> morning.
> No further progress was made in the meeting. Mehdi put it on the agenda
> since
> you hadn't responded to David's latest email (copied below) and he
> wanted to
> make sure that no changes were required.
> 
> I just now took a look at this and found that I had to read it about 4
> times
> before I realized what it was saying. Maybe I'm slow, but I suspect that
> you
> were having a similar problem when you read it in the LRM.
> 
> Note that the indentation used here is most likely a source of part of
> the
> confusion. The following is in the LRM. I don't know about everone elses
> browser, but in my browser I see this indentation showing up in the html
> version of the Mantis 1655 proposal. The Editor duplicated what I see
> there.
> 
>      i_zero
>         <i[1],j[0]>
>         <i[1],j[1]>
> 
> This is equivalent to the following
> 
>      i_zero            // user-specified bin for <i[0],j[0]> and
> <i[0],j[1]>
>      <i[1],j[0]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained
>      <i[1],j[1]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained
> 
> The text is NOT showing what is represented by bin i_zero. Instead it is
> showing the 3 bins that are retained for cross x2. i_zero is a separate
> bin of
> its own.
> 
> I agree with David, in that what is shown is consistent with the text
> added
> by Mantis 1655. I do however think that adding some comments and
> adjusting the
> indentation would help the reader. Note that cross x1 also uses this odd
> indentation style.
> 
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> David Scott wrote:
>> Arturo,
>>
>> This is Mantis 1655 (http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1655) and the 
>> "i[1]" is correct.  This was approved by the SV-EC.
>>
>> The reasoning is that cross products involving "i[0]" are already 
>> covered by i_zero because that cross bin was specified with the select
> 
>> expression involving "intersect { 0 }".  The point of the Mantis was
> to 
>> specify that automatically-generated bins are also within the cross,
> but 
>> only for those cross products not already specified by the
> user-defined 
>> cross bins.  That leaves the two automatically-generated cross product
> 
>> bins involving "i[1]".
>>
>> -- David S
>>
>>
>>
>> Arturo Salz wrote:
>>> There is a typo in the example of section 18.6 (page 468) of draft 6.
>>>
>>> The i[1] is incorrect, it should be i[0].
>>> The explanation of cross-products should be changed
>>>
>>> FROM
>>>
>>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>>     i_zero
>>>         <i[1],j[0]>
>>>         <i[1],j[1]>
>>>
>>> TO
>>>
>>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>>     i_zero
>>>         <i[0],j[0]>
>>>         <i[0],j[1]>
>>>
>>> I believe this is just a typo. This is Mantis 2428.
>>>
>>>     Arturo
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>

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