RE: [sv-ec] Ballot issue #106

I agree with Neil. When I wrote this comment I definitely had "inout" in
mind also.
So, it makes sense to address issues involving all argument types
together by one
mantis.

Regds,
Swapnajit

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil
Korpusik
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:52 PM
To: Rich, Dave
Cc: Scott, David; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: 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.


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