Re: [sv-ec] E-mail Ballot Due Wenesday, June 10, 8AM PDT

Jonathan votes NO on 2575 and 1486:

2575: I agree with Shalom that the BNF needs adjustment,
      and will change my vote to YES if that is addressed.

1486: I think we should look at the proposal that's 
      already attached to the Mantis item.

YES to all others, but with a comment relating to 2749:
One of the main issues raised by the ballot comment was
the phrase "So far" at the beginning of this clause.
I would prefer to see that changed, perhaps as a friendly 
amendment to the existing proposal.

Details below.

1.  Mantis 2693

    Ballot comment #138: Virtual interface in coverpoint?
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.  Mantis 2598   [this mantis item is duplicate of 2575, but it was 
decided
        to vote on this]

    Ballot comment #52 How can class type parameters be accessed?
    Close as a duplicate of 2575
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

    Ballot comment #64 Access to class type parameters
    Close as a duplicate of 2575
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

3.  Mantis 2575

      Ballot comment #50 Is this.<param_name> or handle.<param_name>
      allowed for class parameters or local parameters of a class?
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

      Ballot comment #52 How can class type parameters be accessed?
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

      Ballot comment #55 Related to specification of hierarchical 
       class methods for triggerring.
[This should be: Is a class parameter implicitly "public" and "static"]
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

      Ballot comment #59 can :: or . be applied to access a class 
      parameter or a param declared inside the class?
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

      Ballot comment #64 Access to class type parameters
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

I will change my vote to YES on all these if the BNF fix 
suggested by Shalom in bugnote 8442 is implemented.

4.  Mantis 2608
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2608
    Ballot Comment #59 :: access and dot access to class value parameters 
and
    local parameters should be allowed

    Now handled by Mantis 2575
    Close as a duplicate of 2575
     Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
 
5.  Mantis 2746
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2746

    Ballot comment #113 "others" coverage bin example
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

6.  Mantis 2749
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2749

    Ballot comment #53 class properties and methods are public
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
I still don't like the phrase "So far" at the start of the text,
but it's not problematic enough for me to vote No.

7.  Mantis 2750
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2750
    Ballot comment #121 "expression" should be "constant_expression"
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

8.  Mantis 2748
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2748
    Ballot comment #19 Preponed PLI region not included (but should be 
removed
    from LRM anyway as it does not really exist)
    No change required.
    See the bug note for an explanation as to why the figure does not need
    to be updated.
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

9.  Mantis 2745
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2745
    Ballot comment #111 impicit coverpoint for cross
    An enhancement request
    Move to "Status=Resolved, Resolution=Open" and add the followingbug 
note.
    "The committee read and considered this feedback. the committee 
    believes it is too broad for the scope of the draft to implement
    at this time but may be considered for future revisions."
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

10.  Mantis 1575
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1575
     Ballot comment #105, 110: can we use net in expressions variable or
    expresson.
    NO change needed.
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

11.  Mantis 2694
     http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2694
    Ballot comment #140: this is out of scope of this version.
    NO change needed.
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

12.  Mantis 1486
     http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1486

    Ballot comment #190: this is out of scope of this version.
    NO change needed.
    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___
There is a proposal for 1486 that seems to me to answer the
ballot comment.  I'll change my vote to YES if there is 
consensus in EC that no change is needed, but I'd prefer to
see the definition done.

13.  Mantis 2744
    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2744
    Ballot comment #109:
    NO change needed.
    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

-- 
Jonathan Bromley


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