I voted NO on 37,38, 44, 67, 107, 181, 182, and 185 - and YES on everything else. Below are my detailed votes: Arturo: 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 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2700 Items 37 & 38 are misleading. The part in Equality and Comparison that says: Each operand can be a string literal or an expression of string type. If one of the two operands is a string literal, it shall be implicitly converted to string type ... Can be misinterpreted to mean that when both operands are string literals the operation is a string operation. A better way might be: One or both operands can be an expression of type string; one operand can be a string literal. If only one of the two operands is a string literal, it shall be implicitly converted to string type ... Likewise, the change to concatenation seems to change the semantics of string s = { "a", "b", "c" } and is IMHO less clear than the original text - the only change to concatenation should be to replace "of type string" to "expression of type string". 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 _____ YES __X__ No [both svbc and svec will vote on this] http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2701 The new text is way too verbose, less accurate, and way too restrictive regarding when and how many warnings should be issued. There was nothing wrong with the previous verbiage. The issue raised in this item was to clarify the behavior of the assignment of an unbounded queue to a bound queue. I believe this can be better handled by clarifying the behavior of assigning to a bounded queue an aggregate type (i.e., a queue or other unpacked array) in terms of the set of individual assignments. As to the warnings, this proposal is too restrictive to vendors, and the LRM generally gives wider latitude to implementations with respect to warnings. 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 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2358 I'd like to see some of Shalom's feedback incorporated and more carefully reviewed. 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 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2711 I don't think these should be allowed. id 181, svdb 2514 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2035 I'm not sure the simplification is worth the backward incompatibility. id 182, svdb 2514 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2514 I agree with the general intent of the proposal, but the use of the term "obligation" for the case in which neither pure nor extern is specified seems too strong. I'd also like to hear more discussion on the need for "extern constrain" since constrains do not exhibit the syntactical ambiguity that forced us to introduce this notation for methods. Is it needed strictly for orthogonality with methods? id 183, svdb 2510 __X__ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510 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 _____ YES __X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342 I'd like more discussion on this than a hasty email vote. id 186, svdb 2288 __X__ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288 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 __X__ YES _____ No 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 From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi Mohtashemi Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:36 AM To: sv-ec@eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 11:00am PDT Friday May 1 2009 We are conducting an email vote on the following issues related to the p1800-2009 draft 8 LRM Ballot comments. - Deadline is 11:00am PDT Friday May 1 2009. This is a shortened time voted on sv-ec meeting of April 27 2009, 4 days. - An issue will pass if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote. - A NO vote must be accompanied with a reason. The issue will be reviewed at next meeting of sv-ec. - Note that we are referencing both ballot id and mantis id if both exist. Please read the description of each carefully. - Mark your vote with an x. - Note: There are many items in this email ballot, please review carefully. - Please note if a mantis item is specified and listed below along with the ballot comment id it must have a proposal attached for vote. Eligible voters as of April 27 2009 sv-ec meeting are as follows: 17 members. NOTE: sv-ec voted to include Shalom in the eligible voter list. Arturo Salz Cliff Cummings Dave Rich Francoise Martinolle Neil Korpusik Ray Ryan Gordon Vreugdenhil Steven Sharp Stu Sutherland Heath Chambers Don Mills Jonathan Bromley Mark Hartoog Tom Alsop Mike Mintz David Scott Shalom Bresticker id 48 allow for future enhancement _____ YES _____ No id 54 allow for future enhancement _____ YES _____ No id 16, 17 sv-ec agrees with sv-cc resolution to keep these regions for future use. Reject svdb 2632 statement. _____ YES _____ No id 19 No action required _____ YES _____ No id 20 svdb 2634 (svbc issue) sv-ec votes as well to accept the proposal as well. _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2634 id 105 (id 110 is duplicate of 105) No action required _____ YES _____ No id 115 No action required _____ YES _____ No id 35, svdb 2705 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2705 ids 36,37,38,39,40 svdb 2700 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2700 id 41, svdb 2681 _____ YES _____ No [both svbc and svec will vote on this] http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2681 id 42, svdb 2682 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2682 id 43 and id 45, svdb 2430 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2430 id 44, svdb 2701 _____ YES _____ No [both svbc and svec will vote on this] http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2701 id 46, svdb 2706 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2706 id 47, svdb 2713 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2713 id 57, svdb 2698 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2698 id 65, svdb 2723 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2723 id 67, svdb 2358 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2358 id 80, svdb 2596 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2596 id 102, svdb 2718 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2718 id 106, svdb 2710 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2710 id 107, svdb 2711 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2711 id 181, svdb 2514 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2035 id 182, svdb 2514 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2514 id 183, svdb 2510 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510 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.] _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2473 id 185, svdb 2342 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342 id 186, svdb 2288 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288 id 192, svdb 1256 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1256 svdb 2719 for the following ids id 58 _____ YES _____ No id 60 _____ YES _____ No id 61 _____ YES _____ No id 104 _____ YES _____ No id 108 _____ YES _____ No id 112 _____ YES _____ No id 117 _____ YES _____ No id 118 _____ YES _____ No id 119 _____ YES _____ No id 122 _____ YES _____ No id 137 _____ YES _____ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2719 -- 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 May 1 00:53:32 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 00:54:18 PDT