RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review

I agree,
ed 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:05 PM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: Dave_Rich@mentor.com; john.havlicek@freescale.com; 
> Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM; piper@cadence.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: 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.