[sv-ac] review of preliminary merged LRM

All:

My impression so far has been that the merge draft has left the
assertions material largely intact, simply with new section numbers.

Nevertheless, SV-AC needs to review the preliminary merged LRM and
provide any feedback to Stu.  See details about the feedback that
Stu is looking for below. 

The merged draft has been available for a while, so We should try to
do this as soon as possible.

We will also need to vote to support/not support the merge by 24 April.

We can discuss the vote in our next meeting.

Best regards,

John H.

> ----
> Mail from Stu:
> 
> Working group chairs and members,
> 
> As the editor, I just wanted to remind everyone what I need from each
> working group regarding the review of the preliminary draft of the
> merged
> LRM (P1800-2008/Draft 2).
> 
> The primary purpose of this review is to verify the ***organization and
> completeness*** of the merged Verilog and SystemVerilog LRMs.  To finish
> the
> merge process, I need to know:
> 
> 1). Are the clauses and first-order subclauses in an order that makes
> the
> document usable and intuitive.
> 
> 2). Are there any subclauses from the separate LRMs that I failed to
> include
> in this preliminary draft, and which should be in the next draft of the
> merged LRM.
> 
> 3). Has the preliminary draft proved that we delivery a merged LRM as a
> 2008
> standard.  Each committee is give their opinion whether the merge
> process
> should continue, or if we should stay with the separate LRMs for the
> 2008
> standard.
> 
> To accomplish the primary goals of this preliminary draft, it is not
> necessary to drill down to the paragraph and sentence level.  Nor should
> Mantis items be created against this preliminary draft.  Digging in too
> deep
> could lead to effort that needs to be repeated on the next draft.
> Clause
> numbering and subclause numbering are subject to change based on
> feedback
> from reviewing the preliminary draft.  As noted in the preliminary
> draft,
> there are many subclauses from the separate LRMs that have been
> cut-and-pasted where I think they should go, in order to evaluate
> organization and completeness.  The actual merging of that text has not
> yet
> been completed, and is not ready for review at the paragraph and
> sentence
> level.
> 
> In short, the purpose of this preliminary draft is for a course-grained
> review.  The fine grained review should begin with the next draft, once
> course-grained feedback has been incorporated.
> 
> Stu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Sutherland
> Sutherland HDL, Inc.
> stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> 503-692-0898
> 
> 

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