RE: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] SV-BC BNF issues review

I think a semicolon i.e. 'pass_stat;' should do.

Brad/Stu, as long as you have your attention, another BNF issue: The
"actual_arg_list" seems to be incompletely removed (in favor of
list_of_arguments). It shows up in Syntax 17-2, 17-4 (few places here),
17-14, Annex A.

Stu did you mean to take this whole thing out or what's going on ?

Thx.
-Bassam.

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Architect, R&D
Novas Software, Inc.
(408) 467-7893
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:32 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] SV-BC BNF issues review
A LRM typo that Dan Jacobi points out in his BNF issues review is not
directly about BNF, so I would like to highlight that typo separately to the
editor --
In the example at the bottom of page 224 (17.3) 
      base_rule1:
          assert property (cont_prop(rst,in1,in2))
                      pass_stat
                      else fail_stat;
there is either a missing semicolon in the statement 'pass_stat;'
or both pass_stat and fail_stat should be in italics instead of Courier and
there is an extra semicolon after 'fail_stat'.
-- Brad