[sv-ac] Comments on proposal for 1668

Hello John,

I have looked at the proposal (not yet the formal semantics) for Local
Variable Initializers. It looks good. Please see some minor comments
below.

Best regards,
ed
-------------

pp1, par.1: "be performed in order at" --> "be performed in the order of
declaration at"

pp1, par.2: "For properties, our formal semantics" --> "For properties,
the current formal semantics"
Also, should it mention more explicitly that it is an error when the
sequence admits an empty match? 

pp3, after Syntax 16-12: Should it mention the kind of types that are
allowed (or forbidden like for assertions) to be used with local
variable declarations? I have had quite a few inquiries about that.

pp5, longer par. before 16.9, p.336 CHANGE: "a local variable that s
assigned shall later become" --> "a local variable that s assigned may
later become". I think that "shall" should only be used in the specific
case that is stated in the next sequence.

pp6, count_a_cycles: formatting perhaps split the sequence expression
over two lines.

pp8, 16.13.7 1st 2 paragraphs: Why is it necessary to introduce the
notion of time step and then relate it to the clocking event occurrence.
I think that it could be stated more simply using "clock tick" which is
defined in 16.4.

pp8, last par.: "preponed value" --> "sampled value"

last page, before A.2.10: Would it be useful to also give the equivalent
formulation that does not use the initialization at declaration in this
example? I.e., use the ##0?
------------


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