Re: [sv-ac] Review of Mantis 1549

Hi Lisa,

I re-read version 11 of the proposal.  I have a couple further comments:

1.  At the beginning of subclause 16.7.1 , and again at the begginning of
subclause 16.12.1, you added the following paragrapgh right after the header:

    "Argument passing is done by substitution . . ."

This paragraph does not really belong here.  It interfere's with the flow of
the document.  I suggest you move it to the end of subclause 16.7:  i.e. just
before the 16.7.1 header.   Alternatively, you could move it later in 16.7.1
so that the topic paragraph is first.


Tom

Lisa Piper wrote On 05/24/07 14:11,:
> Thanks for the feedback!  Answers below…
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Thatcher
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:19 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] Review of Mantis 1549
> 
>  
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> I have reviewed the proposal for Mantis 1549.  The proposal in general looks
> 
> good.  I have the following questions:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.  On page 4, the text reads, "For example, two equivalent ways of passing
> 
>     delay and repetition arguments are shown below:"
> 
>     However, there is only one example that follows.  I have been looking at
> 
>     the one example trying to see if there are two different ways of passing
> 
>     arguments in the one example.  I don't see what is equivalent.
> 
> */[Lisa Piper >>>] yes – I wonder what I meant.  I have simply removed
> that sentence. There probably existed two at one time./*
> 
> 2.  On page 4, the text reads, "Parentheses are implicit for passing complex
> 
>     expressions as arguments"
> 
>     This is not clear to me.  Does this mean the parentheses are required?
> 
>     Or, are they not required?
> 
> *[Lisa Piper >>>] no parenthesis are not required by the user.  If you
> instantiate that argument into the actual property or sequence
> expression, you interpret the result as if there were parenthesis around
> it.  This is necessary for example, to keep the clock from flowing out
> of that expression. But the parenthesis are implicit, meaning that the
> tool knows to assume this without the user having to explicitly provide
> parenthesis.*
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  There are some minor text coloring issues.   For example there is a line
> 
>     on p. 4 "cover property ( @(posedge clk) x ##1 y));" which is colored
> 
>     black.  I don't think this was part of the original text.
> 
>     The same thing occurs at the top of page 5.
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  In 17.11.1, I believe there is some missing strikeout text, but the
> final
> 
>     text shown looks fine.
> 
> */[Lisa Piper >>>] Regarding 3 & 4, the changes that are relative to
> changes in other proposals that have been approved but are not reflected
> in draft 3 yet. /*
> 
>  
> 
> 5.          The proposal probably needs the section numbers updated to
> match Draft 3.
> 
>  
> 
> */[Lisa Piper >>>] no – the current one on Mantis already has this. It
> references chapter 16 now. Perhaps you were looking at draft 9 word doc? /*
> 
>  
> 
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> Thomas J. Thatcher
> 
> Sun Microsystems
> 
> 408-616-5589
> 
> ------------------
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
------------------
Thomas J. Thatcher
Sun Microsystems
408-616-5589
------------------


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