Let me explain in general my assumptions about the ballot. Balloters raise issues and offer suggested resolutions. The committee is only allowed to work on those issues and resolve them in a way they think will achieve consensus. The ballot response will detail why a suggestion was adopted, rejected, or modified. DaveR ________________________________ From: Rich, Dave Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:30 AM To: Scott, David Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Ballot issue #106 This is a ballot issue. We are not required to accept the proposed solution as stated, just make sure that the original issues is addressed. ________________________________ From: Scott, David Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:17 AM To: Rich, Dave Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Ballot issue #106 I believe we were told to work on ballot issues only. I'd like clarification from Mehdi and Neil on that. Dave Rich, Dave wrote: I would really like to make a covergroup output/inout arguments illegal. There is no reason to allow these other than sloppiness. I would also like to address ballot #110 in the same proposal by mentioning that a ref argument is treated as const ref, and that const ref only requires type compatibility with wires and variables. Dave ________________________________ From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Scott, David Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:26 PM To: sv-ec@server.eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] Ballot issue #106 This is the one about covergroup arguments using "output" ... http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2710 -- 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 Apr 24 09:51:26 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 24 2009 - 09:51:44 PDT