[sv-ec] Editorial issues with proposal for Mantis 2279

From: Neil Korpusik <Neil.Korpusik_at_.....>
Date: Fri Sep 05 2008 - 16:15:31 PDT
Hi Stu,

It appears that there are 3 Editorial changes required for the last portion
of the proposal for Mantis 2279. Daniel flagged one of them, but when I took
a look I agreed with his analysis and then noticed a couple of other issues.

1. Spelling correction

    From: summarised
      To: summarized

2. BNF shown in G.4, missing "{attribute_instance}"

    Please check what is shown in A.8.2 for this omission.

3. BNF shown in G.4, missing " | null"

    Please check what is shown in A.8.2 for this omission.


Neil



On 08/29/08 02:35, Daniel Mlynek wrote:
> Proposal for 2279 is clause fixing annex G.4 has:
>  
> 
> The syntax for the randomize function is defined as /randomize_call /in 
> A.8.2. The specific form applicable to std::randomize is summarised here 
> as follows:
> 
> * *
> 
> *randomize *[ *( *[ variable_identifier_list ] *) *] variable_identifier 
> {, variable_identifier } [ *with *constraint_block ];
> 
> There is missing attibute instance - this is just editorial change:
> 
> The syntax for the randomize function is defined as /randomize_call /in 
> A.8.2. The specific form applicable to std::randomize is summarised here 
> as follows:
> 
> *randomize* *{ attribute_instance }*[ *( *[ variable_identifier_list ] 
> *) *] variable_identifier {, variable_identifier } [ *with 
> *constraint_block ];
> 
> DANiel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> *Sent:* 29 sierpnia 2008 09:40
> *To:* Daniel Mlynek
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
> Yes, I agree with you now.
> I guess we did not think of that, since the attribute_instance is not 
> really part of the function call itself, but a modifier of it.
> You can ask SV-EC to ask the editor to add it.
>  
> Shalom
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Daniel Mlynek [mailto:daniel.mlynek@aldec.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 10:33 AM
>     *To:* Bresticker, Shalom
>     *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
>     This is a call - not a prototype in proposal:
> 
>     The syntax for the randomize function is defined as /randomize_call
>     /in A.8.2. The specific form applicable to std::randomize is
>     summarised here as follows:
> 
>     * *
> 
>     *randomize *[ *( *[ variable_identifier_list ] *) *]
>     variable_identifier {, variable_identifier } [ *with
>     *constraint_block ];
> 
>     DANiel
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
>     *Sent:* 29 sierpnia 2008 09:28
>     *To:* Daniel Mlynek
>     *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
>     G.4 shows the function prototype.
>     The attribute_instance is not part of the function prototype.
>      
>     Regards,
>     Shalom
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* Daniel Mlynek [mailto:daniel.mlynek@aldec.com]
>         *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:33 PM
>         *To:* Bresticker, Shalom
>         *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
>         thx - it exactly matches my question
>         I only wonder why in proposal :"{ attribute_instance }"
> 
>         was missed in clause G.4 at the very end
> 
>         DANiel
> 
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
>         *Sent:* 28 sierpnia 2008 12:19
>         *To:* Daniel Mlynek; sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
>         *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
>         This was addressed in Mantis 2279.
>         It should go into Draft 7.
>          
>         Thanks,
>         Shalom
> 
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             *From:* owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
>             [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Mlynek
>             *Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:15 PM
>             *To:* sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
>             *Subject:* [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence
> 
>             LRM in chapter 17 gives to definitions:
> 
>                 scope_randomize ::= [ *std:: *] *randomize ( *[
>             variable_identifier_list ] *) *[ *with *constraint_block ]
> 
>                 inline_constraint _declaration ::=
>             class_variable_identifier *. randomize *[ *( *[
>             variable_identifier_list | *null *] *) *]     *with *[ *( *[
>             identifier_list ] *) *] constraint_block
> 
>             Those definition are not then used in annex A bnf there in
>             only randomize_call:
> 
>             * *
> 
>             *    randomize *{ attribute_instance } [ *( *[
>             variable_identifier_list | *null *] *) *] [ *with
>             *constraint_block ]
> 
>             IMHO in all of above there is a bit of incosistency. ANNEX a
>             covers both definiition from chapter 17 bu definition
>             differs in t:
>             - { attribute_instance }
>             - obligatory of  parantheses: *( *[ variable_identifier_list
>             ] *)  vs [( *[ variable_identifier_list ] *) ]*
>             *- null in arg list*
>             - with clause  *with *[ *( *[ identifier_list ] *) *]
>             constraint_block
>              
>             Some of the difference was made surely on purpose - but
>             really all are ok?
>             1. should attribute be allowed in all 3 definitions?
>             2. should parantheses be not obligatory in all 3 definitions?
>             3. should null be allowed in all 3 definitions?
>             4. *with *[ *( *[ identifier_list ] *) *] constraint_block
>             be added into annex A? with some footnote?
>              
>             Mantis is down again so I cannot check if this was already
>             addressed
>              
>              
>             DANiel
> 
>             -- 
>             This message has been scanned for viruses and
>             dangerous content by *MailScanner*
>             <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>             believed to be clean. 
> 
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>         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.
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     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.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Sep 5 16:16:28 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 05 2008 - 16:17:12 PDT