RE: [sv-ac] IEEE 1800 SV-AC: vote on updated proposal for #1549

Hi All,
 
I'm afraid I still see that this proposal is imprecise -- my vote: no. 
 
For the life of me, I dunno why it's been 2 meetings and each time we
failed to chat live about this. Here's a recap some of the issues that
make me hesitate -- a bigger writeup than my earlier mentions:
 
1) "When a type is specified, that type is enforced by semantic checks":

 - Well we do "semantic checks" also when there is no type specified ...
so sentence is at least misleading.
 - Which types are we talking about ? For non-assertion types
(bit/byte/...) we don't do "semantic checks" according to the meaning of
the term in assertion chapter, but rather do type
(compatibility)checks/casting ... Do we really mean the "semantic check"
like untyped i.e. inline in context ? Or is it a good ole type check
(see (2)) ?
2) Again, the Boolean < Sequence < Property issue seems not clear in the
context of (1) ... in fact begging the question -- in the "like untyped"
interpretation why are the types there to begin with if we are "waiting"
for (inline) context semantic checks ?
3) There are no examples for sequence/property passing ...

** SOLUTION: I think we mean to use the type system according to Boolean
< Sequence < Property i.e. for example I can pass a sequence to a
property type but not vice-versa. If this is not the intent then type
system is doing nothing, if it IS the intent then this is missing and
needs to be added not the least of which is with examples. I don't think
it's clear as is and the loose use of "semantic checks" isn't helping.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Eduard Cerny
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:19 AM
To: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Cc: Eduard Cerny
Subject: [sv-ac] IEEE 1800 SV-AC: vote on updated proposal for #1549


Thank you, Lisa. 
All: please vote on the updated #1549.
Thank you,
ed
 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Piper
	Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:20 PM
	To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: [sv-ac] 1549 New Formal Types Updated and 1601 created
for new keyword for untyped formals
	
	

	Hi all,

	 

	I have updated 1549: "add missing formal type arguments"  to
eliminate references to "implicit" and opened 1601: "add new keyword for
untyped formal argument".  Please review both proposals.

	 

	Ed,

	 

	I believe 1549 is ready to vote on again. 

	 

	Lisa