RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review

But if I understood correctly, Dave did not want even sequences and
properties in cb. This is why my question.
ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:42 PM
> To: Eduard Cerny; 'Dave_Rich@mentor.com'; 
> 'john.havlicek@freescale.com'
> Cc: 'Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com'; 'piper@cadence.com'; 
> 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> We shouldn't. I think the point is no need to put asserts in 
> there as proposal.
> 
> THX. 
> -Bassam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny <edcerny@synopsys.COM>
> To: Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>; 
> john.havlicek@freescale.com <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
> CC: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM 
> <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; piper@cadence.com 
> <piper@cadence.com>; sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> Sent: Wed Feb 21 11:37:51 2007
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> 
> But the LRM already allows sequences and properties to be in 
> cb. Can we
> remove them now?
> ed 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:34 PM
> > To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
> > Cc: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM; piper@cadence.com; 
> sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> > 
> > > 
> > > It may be that there is no point in putting sequence or property
> > > declarations in a clocking block, in which case this proposal
> > > would be unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > J.H.
> > > 
> > [DR>] That was my point.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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.