RE: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601

I agree with Dmitry.
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:42 AM
> To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I vote no on 1601, for the following reasons:
> 1. Since the status of Mantis 928 is reopened, the changes in the
> current proposal should not be relative to Mantis 928, but to the
> existing LRM.
> 2. This proposal introduces 'context' keyword for sequence formal
> arguments BNF only, and not for property formal arguments. The
> appropriate BNF should be added.
> 
> (Hopefully I am talking about the right document version:
> 1601_context_type_2.pdf).
> 
> Also I would not include:
> 
> "Arguments "x" and "y" will be truncated to type
> bit, and argument "z" will be truncated or extended as 
> necessary to make
> it of type byte."
> 
> into this proposal, since it relates to passing sequence/property
> argument semantics, and this issue deserves a separate Mantis entry.
> 
> As for Hillel's comments, I think that the meaning of this Mantis is
> pure syntactic: there are two kinds of property/sequence arguments:
> typed and untyped. Untyped arguments should either be provided at the
> beginning of the argument list without any type specifier or in the
> middle of the list if previous arguments had type specifiers. The
> semantics of the untyped argument passing is out of the scope of this
> Mantis. We already have the untyped arguments de facto, and there is
> nothing new about them. I agree that the argument passing semantics is
> not very clear, but its definition should not delay the current
> enhancement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601
> 
> All:
> 
> Lisa has updated the proposal for 1601 to use the 
> keyword "context", as suggested by Bassam, instead 
> of "implicit" (1601_context_type_1.pdf).
> 
> I have not seen any discussion in response to Bassam's
> explanation of the rationale behind the use of "context"
> for this purpose.
> 
> Therefore, I am calling for an email vote on the revised
> 1601 proposal.
> 
> Below is the voting eligibility for this ballot.  If you
> are eligible to vote then please do, as 80% participation
> in ballots is required to maintain eligibility.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> Ballot on Mantis 1601 
> 
> - Called on 2007-01-20, final ballots due by 23:59 PST on 2007-01-27.
> 
>  n[------xxx------] Shalom Bresticker (Intel)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Freescale)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)	
>  n[--x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
>  v[-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
>  n[--x------x-----] Faisal Haque (Cisco)
>  t[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
>  n[--------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
>  n[x-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
>  n[--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
>  n[----xx-xxx-----] Don Mills (Microchip)
>  v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
>  v[xx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
>  n[-----xx-x------] Stu Sutherland (Sutherland HDL)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
>    |-------------- attendance on 2007-01-09
>  |---------------- voting eligibility for this ballot
> 
> 	Legend:
> 		x = attended
> 		- = missed
> 		r = represented
> 		. = not yet a member
> 		v = valid voter (2 out of last 3)
> 		n = not valid voter
>                 t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.