[sv-ac] minor comments on 1549

Hi Lisa:

Below are a few minor comments (mostly editorial) on 1549.

J.H.

==========================================================================

- p. 3, 17.6.1 change.  I am confused by the use of "data type" in the context 
  of 

     "The supported data types for sequence formal arguments are the types that
      are allowed for operands in assertion expressions (see 17.4.1)."

  This suggests that the additional types "sequence" and "implicit" are not 
  data types.  However, later on p. 6 there is the statement

     "The supported data types for property formal arguments include all the 
      types allowed for sequences plus the addition of the property type."

  This suggests that all the sequence types are considered data types.

- Top of p. 4:  

     "For example, three equivalent ways of passing arguments ..."  

  I am a bit concerned with saying that these three are equivalent.
  They are not equivalent when the assignment rules for binding actual
  arguments to typed formal arguments are taken into account.  I
  prefer to say

     "For example, three similar ways of passing arguments ..."

  Ways 2 and 3 really are equivalent.

- p. 4.  Doron has written a separate comment about passing delay and repetition 
  values to integer types with constant qualifier.  I think at this time we should 
  at least review the vision for this sort of argument passing.
  . As Doron points out, it will be nice to specify that the formal argument is 
    for a compile-time constant expression since it is used in a delay
    or range value.
  . Using integer types means that we impose the assignment rules of 
    binding actual arguments to typed formal arguments.
  . I think we have understood that there is an exception to the assignment
    rule for binding when the actual argument is $.

- p. 5.  I would change

     "If the intent is to pass only the name of the signal of an event_expression ..."

  to 

     "If the intent is to pass a signal that is not an entire event_expression ..."

- p. 5.  In the example with sequence foo, operator associativity makes the 
  implicit parenthesization like this:

     ( (1'b1, loc_a = a) ##0 (t == loc_a)[*0:$] ) ##1 b

  and so the [*0:$] cannot match 0 times due to the ##0 fusion.  I recommend 
  changing [*0:$] to [*1:$].