[sv-ac] RE: Call to vote: Due August 29 (resend with updated 3033)

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=5355&type=bug

I assume a new pdf version with the track changes stuff removed.

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

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5343&type=bug

Mantis 3033 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5366&type=bug

Mantis 3113 __X__ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3113

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5331&type=bug

Mantis 3206 ____ Yes __X__ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3206
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5357&type=bug

In the changes to 16.4:
-begin-end construct -> begin-end block
-begin should be Courier font (it is already bold)
-The previous text stated that the variable capture happens at the instant the deferred expression is evaluated. You change that to the word time. Is there a reason for this change?
-You use the terms pending report and pending report queue. I believe those should be pending assertion report and deferred assertion report queue respectively.
-The final reference to A2 is in the wrong font.

Mantis 3385 ____ Yes __X__ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3385
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5352&type=bug

-The fonts of the () don't match in the first sub-bullet of the first bullet where it talks about error_type
-"The first time each assertion fails, the arguments of the action block are evaluated, even though the action block itself is not executed." Isn't this statement true every time a deferred assertion fails? Maybe change to "Upon each deferred assertion failure, "
-I think it would add clarity to state that the pending reports are flushed from the deferred assertion report queue.
-I would like to see the structure of the bullets for the first and second failure more symmetric (and I would like to adjust the wording for a2 as I find the current wording awkward). Maybe something like:
  *Upon the second failure of a1, function error_type is called with opcode == 0, so assertion func_assert passes.
  *Upon the second failure of a2, the value of 0 is used for the expression opcode.

-In the final paragraph you talk about the evaluation of action block arguments. Isn't it more precisely action block subroutine arguments? I would suggest adjusting things in two spots "action block arguments" -> "action block subroutine arguments" and "their arguments" -> "their subroutine arguments". This is also a problem in several other places in the proposal. Please fix those as well.

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