Re: [sv-ec] Ballot issue #106

Yes, what Dave is saying is correct.

The point raised in item 106 applies to output, inout and ref arguments. It is
true that the feedback only explicitly mentioned outputs, but the same issue
applies to all 3. I have to believe that the person writing this feedback
would agree that this point applies to all 3.

My recommendation is to write a proposal that addresses output, inout and ref
arguments. It doesn't seem to make much sense to explicitly mention outputs
and leave out the other two.

One of the main factors is to keep the changes simple and non-controversial
so that we can finish up by May 14th.

Neil




On 04/24/09 09:39, Rich, Dave wrote:
> 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> 
> [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 <mailto: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* <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.