Subject: FW: [sv-ac] final final final proposal 19
From: Faisal Haque (fhaque@cisco.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 09:13:36 PST
John,
Please take a look and let me know.
Thanks.
-Faisal
-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Smith [mailto:David.Smith@Synopsys.COM]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 3:00 PM
To: 'Karen Pieper'; Faisal Haque; johny.srouji@intel.com;
Arif.Samad@Synopsys.COM
Cc: 'Surrendra A Dudani'
Subject: FW: [sv-ac] final final final proposal 19
Greetings,
Brad Pierce is working on leaving on vacation for the next two weeks. In
his final clean-up has generated a suggestion for proposal 19 in SV-AC
that is dependent on an SV-BC issue. I would suggest that this is an
inter-committee dependency between the two committees that you need to
handle.
Assuming both get approved then this needs to be handled and then sent
to me as an LRM change.
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Pierce [mailto:bpierce@Synopsys.COM]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:58 PM
To: David W. Smith
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] final final final proposal 19
David,
If the following cleanup proposal is approved by the SV-BC
http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-bc/hm/att-1473/01-subroutine.htm
then I would suggest replacing the proposed sequence_match_item with
sequence_match_item ::=
variable_assignment
| subroutine_call
Restrictions on the kind of subroutines that can be attached should
ideally be semantic checks described in the body of the LRM, like the
restrictions on the kinds of functions allowed in statements.
Also, I wonder why the proposed section "Calling subroutines
on a match of a sequence" does not allow method calls.
-- Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Smith [mailto:david.smith@synopsys.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:11 AM
To: 'Brad Pierce'
Subject: FW: [sv-ac] final final final proposal 19
Here is proposal 19.
Regards
David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 13:07:49 PST