Re: [sv-ac] 1547 review

Hi Ed:

I was not suggesting removing that capability.

If people prefer to write the sequence/property declaration
in a clocking block and then instantiate it outside in an 
assertion directive, they could still do it.  But then they 
should not complain about not having the assertion directive
close to the declaration.

If they want the assertion directive close to the declaration,
then they should not put the declaration in a clocking block.

This seems to make sense to me.  What do you think?

J.H.

> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:37:51 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> Thread-Index: AcdV7CCwFFVEyTCMTI2btShcUa2wggAAvSwQAAAnnBA=
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>, <piper@cadence.com>, <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2007 19:37:52.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6949740:01C755EF]
> 
> But the LRM already allows sequences and properties to be in cb. Can we
> remove them now?
> ed=20
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > J.H.
> > >=20
> > [DR>] That was my point.
> >=20
> > --=20
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

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