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

From: Arturo Salz <Arturo.Salz_at_.....>
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 00:49:06 PDT
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