RE: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal

Hi Lisa,
 
3 comments -- independent issues:
 
1) Do we really need to create a backward incompatibility ? We can leave
cover property (sequence_expr) in and recommend not using or at least
*deprecate* instead of striking out. It's not an erratum we are fixing,
rather can be thought of as better/clearer syntax + enhancement to add
disable iff -- intended to help users not make things harder short term.
 
2) The wording of "cover property" being a "one match" is too strong.
There are cases (implication) when more than one match results, in fact
we rely on this (per previous discussion) to define the semantics of
"cover sequence".
 
3) Do we need to file a separate proposal for semantics update (the
annex) ? Or are we adding to same ?
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Lisa
Piper
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:18 AM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal



I have uploaded a new version of 1768 - cover sequence.  It is attached
for convenience. 

Lisa <<1768_cover_sequence_3.pdf>> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

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