Re: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 11:00am PDT Friday May 1 2009

From: <jonathan.bromley_at_.....>
Date: Wed Apr 29 2009 - 02:59:00 PDT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan votes YES to all EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING 4 ITEMS:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

id 181, svdb 2035    _____ YES   __X__ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2035 

If it's illegal to have methods with static lifetime,
then the word "default" in the first sentence of the
proposal should be deleted; methods are automatic 
whether you like it or not, and there's no question
of a default.  I will change my vote to YES if this
is done as a friendly amendment.

 

id 183, svdb 2510    _____ YES   __X__ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510 

I completely disagree with this change.  Clocking
blocks are static declarative constructs, fixed at 
elaboration time, and the linkage between a clocking 
block and its clocking signals is essentially static. 
This change may possibly make sense as a future enhancement 
but I see no reason to implement it at this time.



id 186, svdb 2288    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288 

Since this is about getting the wording right, we should
stop using the ill-defined word "entry" and restrict the
description to indices only.  I would change my vote to 
YES if the words
    "entry whose index"
were replaced with
    "index whose value"
in both sentences.



svdb 2719 all YES except id  60  _____ YES   __X__ No

The first occurrence of "typedef" in this sub-proposal 
should be replaced with "type".  I will change my vote
to YES if this is done.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete list of items and my votes follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

id 48  allow for future enhancement
      __X__ YES   _____ No
 
id 54  allow for future enhancement
      __X__ YES   _____ No
 
id 16, 17
   sv-ec agrees with sv-cc resolution to keep these regions for future 
use. 
   Reject svdb 2632 statement. 
   __X__ YES   _____ No
 
id 19  No action required
    __X__ YES   _____ No
 
id 20    svdb 2634  (svbc issue)
    sv-ec votes as well to accept the proposal as well.
   __X__ YES   _____ No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2634 
 
id 105 (id 110 is duplicate of 105)
     No action required
    __X__ YES   _____ No
 
id 115  No action required
    __X__ YES   _____ No
 
 
id 35, svdb 2705    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2705 
 
ids 36,37,38,39,40
svdb 2700    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2700 
 
 
id 41, svdb 2681    __X__ YES   _____ No
[both svbc and svec will vote on this]
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2681 
 
 
id 42, svdb 2682    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2682 
 
 
id 43 and id 45, 
svdb 2430    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2430 
 
 
id 44, svdb 2701    __X__ YES   _____ No
[both svbc and svec will vote on this]
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2701 
 
 
id 46, svdb 2706    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2706 
 
id 47, svdb 2713    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2713 
 
id 57, svdb 2698    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2698 
 
id 65, svdb 2723    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2723 
 
id 67, svdb 2358    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2358 
 
id 80, svdb 2596    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2596 
 
id 102, svdb 2718    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2718 
 
id 106, svdb 2710    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2710 
 
id 107, svdb 2711    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2711 
 
id 181, svdb 2035    _____ YES   __X__ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2035 

If it's illegal to have methods with static lifetime,
then the word "default" in the first sentence of the
proposal should be deleted; methods are automatic 
whether you like it or not, and there's no question
of a default.  I will change my vote to YES if this
is done as a friendly amendment.

 
id 182, svdb 2514    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2514 
 
id 183, svdb 2510    _____ YES   __X__ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510 

I completely disagree with this change.  Clocking
blocks are static declarative constructs, fixed at 
elaboration time, and the linkage between a clocking 
block and its clocking signals is essentially static. 
This change may possibly make sense as a future enhancement 
but I see no reason to implement it at this time.

 
id 184, svdb 2473 
CLOSE 2473,  id 184 requires no further action:
[ Draft8 says
  An associative array type or class shall be illegal as a 
  destination type. So this has already been made illegal.]
   __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2473 
 
id 185, svdb 2342    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342 
 
id 186, svdb 2288    __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288 

Since this is about getting the wording right, we should
stop using the ill-defined word "entry" and restrict the
description to indices only.  I would change my vote to 
YES if the words
    entry whose index
were replaced with
    index whose value
in both sentences.

 
id 192, svdb 1256     __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1256 
 
 
svdb 2719 for the following  ids
id  58  __X__ YES   _____ No
id  60  _____ YES   __X__ No
The first occurrence of "typedef" in this sub-proposal 
should be replaced with "type".  I will change my vote
to YES if this is done.
id  61  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 104  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 108  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 112  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 117  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 118  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 119  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 122  __X__ YES   _____ No
id 137  __X__ YES   _____ No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2719 

-- 
Jonathan Bromley
Consultant

Doulos - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project 
Services

Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, 
UK
Tel:  + 44 (0)1425 471223                       Email: 
jonathan.bromley@doulos.com 
Fax:  +44 (0)1425 471573                        http://www.doulos.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doulos Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company no. 3723454
Its registered office is 4 Brackley Close, Bournemouth International 
Airport,
        Christchurch, BH23 6SE, UK. 

This message may contain personal views which are not the views of
Doulos, unless specifically stated.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Apr 29 03:01:02 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 03:01:56 PDT