[sv-ac] RE: Call to vote: Due August 22

Mantis 2328 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2328
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5319&type=bug

Mantis 2476 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2476
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5285&type=bug

Mantis 2578 ____ Yes __X__ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2578

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5326&type=bug

We need to sort out what we want and make sure the Annex F definition is consistent w/ the textual definition (it isn't in this version of the proposal). This has all been pointed out by others already.

Mantis 3033 ____ Yes __X__ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5325&type=bug

I apologize for the large change set. This is the first time I have thoroughly reviewed this proposal.

In the changes to 16.4.3 you define the term static deferred assertion. Why not use it in the final change for that section? For example, "Static deferred assertions in checkers are described in 17.3."

In the changes to 17.3.1 please move the WITH out of the itemized list.

In the changes to 17.3.1 toplevel is missing a hyphen in the original and changed text.

In the code example in 17.3.1 you should fix the ' as it has been changed in D2.

In the final change to 17.3.1 it states that p3 is checked continuously. I don't really like that description. My understanding is that it is checked whenever a changes. To me continuously implies that I need to check it at every cycle which I don't believe is the case.

In the changes to 17.5, I believe that the language is too loose. I think that in the first paragraph the term general purpose always procedure should be used (see 9.2.2) as it is more precise. I would also prefer to see the final sentence in the second paragraph before the itemized list read, "These forms of checker always procedures may contain the following statements:"

In 17.7.1 it looks like example missed the red strikethrough for some reason.

In 17.7.1, why is the final item (The left hand side...) not bulleted?

In regard to C.2.7 I am confused. I thought that the first paragraph in 17.5 states that always procedures are allowed then this section seems to say they are not. This needs to be clarified.

Mantis 3206 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3206
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5328&type=bug

You may want to add a note to the editor indicating that some new items in the BNF changes are colored red.

Quote from a mail from Stu on 05/11/2011

"As the editor, my preference for BNF changes is that when the actual BNF

requires something to be in red, the proposed change also use red, even when

it is a new addition. Any new text between the bold-red tokens should still

be in blue.

The change can be followed with a "note to the editor" stating that some of

the BNF changes are an addition to the BNF, even though it is not in blue."

I wonder if adding "for observed deferred assertions" to the end of the final sentence in the change set for 16.4.1 would add a bit of clarity?

The final A2 in the changes to 16.4.2 is in the wrong font.

Mantis 3385 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3385
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5281&type=bug

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