[sv-ac] RE: New version of 3206 (final deferred assertions) posted, seeking opinions on terminology

Hi Erik:

I would vote for observed and postponed. I am not thrilled with those names, but I can't come up w/ anything better.

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:03 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Cc: Maidment, Matthew R
Subject: [sv-ac] New version of 3206 (final deferred assertions) posted, seeking opinions on terminology

Hi guys-I have a new version posted at http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=3206 , incorporating Anupam's comments. Please take a look if interested; I'm hoping that we might be able to schedule a vote after next Tuesday's meeting.

One issue that has come up is that some consider the terminology "standard" and "final" deferred assertions to be a bit awkward. Which do people prefer?:

- "standard" and "final", as in the current proposal

- "observed" and "postponed", to reflect their maturity regions

- "observed" and "final", to more precisely describe the current ones & allow the name of the latter type correspond to the actual keyword used

- Other ideas?

--
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.