[sv-ac] RE: Proposal uploaded for 3385 (clarify use of function in deferred assertion action block)

There was an argument that the current language implies this already. But perhaps it would make sense to add an extra sentence stating this more explicitly. Does anyone else have opinions for/against?

From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 6:17 PM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Proposal uploaded for 3385 (clarify use of function in deferred assertion action block)

Erik,

The example implies that function arguments are evaluated when the assertion fails occurs (it is queued). This makes a lot of sense, but why not state that first at the start of the proposal rather than introduce mandatory semantics by way of an example ?

                Arturo

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:40 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Proposal uploaded for 3385 (clarify use of function in deferred assertion action block)

Hi guys-I uploaded a proposal to http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=3385 . Hopefully it won't be too controversial, since I think the results of our discussion were that we really just need to add an example. Please take a look & send any comments.

Unfortunately, I can't make it to tomorrow's SV-AC meeting. Dmitry-if nobody has sent comments by tomorrow, please assign a reviewer for the proposal at the meeting, so we can discuss (& hopefully vote) next week.

--
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.