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

There is no pushback from the champions. What the champions said is that
changes which affect other parts of the standard, or conversely, could
be beneficial to other parts of the standard, should be reviewed by the
other sv-*c committees before being sent to the 1800 WG for final
approval.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com
> Cc: piper@cadence.com; Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com;
sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] P1800 SV-AC: vote on #1549
> 
> Hi Ed:
> 
> I think Dmitry and, perhaps, others did not like requiring the
> implicitly typed arguments to be placed first in the argument list.
> 
> It is fair enough to ask the other committees to have a look at
> "implicit" to see what it can do for them.
> 
> I am a little worried that if we remove "implicit" then we may be
> discarding our first choice solution on the rumor of pushback from the
> champions.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> 
> > X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda-stds.org: majordom set sender
to
> owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:19:11 -0700
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] P1800 SV-AC: vote on #1549
> > Thread-Index: AcbTb8rEWEqxRyu2Qp2lo5jzRQiFrgCQZHCQAAD3XpA=
> > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2006 15:19:13.0109 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[A33C9050:01C6D5B5]
> > X-Virus-Status: Clean
> > Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D5B5.A32CA156
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > 	charset="US-ASCII"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > I think that the issue is that we introduce a new keyword "implicit"
> and
> > there is generally resistance to introducing new keywords that have
a
> > very narrow usage, in this case only in the list of arguments to
> > properties and sequences. Therefore, either the other committees
find
> it
> > useful in other contexts or we perhaps may have to retract it. In
> fact,
> > it is not obvious to me that we do really need it, because we could
> > require that all untyped arguments be placed first on the list.
> > =20
> > Best regards
> > ed
> > =20
> >
> >