RE: [sv-ac] P1800 SV-AC: vote on #1549

I agree. In the champions meeting, this issue was discussed. Some, with
active engagement in other committes, have been assigned to discuss 1549
in their sub-committees. 
Surrendra

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bassam Tabbara
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:54 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] P1800 SV-AC: vote on #1549 


I vote No. I think voting now is rushed -- we need take back to
committee for more discussions on the following:
 
a) Clarify how the new types should be handled in checking and error
reporting and also in relation to the "true nature" identification
functions that Dmitry proposed (isSequence() etc...). Currently it's not
clear at all what compiler *shall* vs. may vs. .... do if the type is
different than nature, and what the user expectation might be here ....
[Note the proposal currently has a bunch of "may be's" that bug me.]
b) "implicit" as we discussed before is handy potentially for SV in
general, that said, it should probably be added elsewhere (with other
types/qualifiers) and referenced here. So we should check with other
committees to find the best way to handle this (incl. double-check on an
existing/better way even) rather than add it exclusively here.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.