Re: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1549

Hi Doron:

It sounds to me like you are almost voting "no", but you
have not explicitly said that.

Is this a "no" vote, or just further discussion?

J.H.

> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda-stds.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> X-ExtLoop1: 1
> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,264,1183359600"; 
>    d="scan'208";a="281188359"
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:02:11 +0300
> X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1549
> Thread-Index: AcfeiQ52OKcMoqhRQC+dKxDIPbJwOwADZVDwABotlYA=
> From: "Bustan, Doron" <doron.bustan@intel.com>
> Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2007 06:02:12.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2A357B0:01C7DF01]
> X-eda.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
> X-Spam-Status: No, No
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by server.eda-stds.org id l7F62hNJ026085
> Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> X-eda.org-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
> X-eda.org-MailScanner-From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org
> 
> I hate to say it, but it looks like we have too much friendly amendments
> and we need to postponed the vote. 
> 
> As for Yaniv's question, at 16.7 (end of p315) it says
> 
> A sequence is declared with optional formal arguments. When a sequence
> is instantiated, actual arguments can be passed to the sequence. The
> sequence gets expanded with the actual arguments by replacing the formal
> arguments with the actual arguments. Semantic checks are performed to
> ensure that the expanded sequence with the actual arguments is legal.
> An actual argument can replace any of the following:
> - Identifier
> - Expression
> - Event control expression
> - Upper delay range or repetition range if the actual argument is $
> 
> I do not see any limitation on the type. I think that once we have the
> const 
> qualifier, we could limit the assignment of $  to const arguments, but
> until then we are fine.
> 
> Doron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:16 PM
> To: Yaniv.Fais@freescale.com
> Cc: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1549
> 
> Yaniv's question is good.
> I am not sure this is legal.
> See Manti 966 and 1350.
> 
> Shalom
>  
> 
> > I also like the usage of "$" as an actual argument in the 
> > example on page 4 but this usage is allowed in a kind of 
> > implicit way since in the LRM clause "6.20.2.1 $ as a 
> > parameter value" allows $ to be assigned to a SV "parameter" 
> > or untyped sequence/property argument, for example "parameter 
> > P = $;" is legal, I don't think "shortint i = $;" is a legal 
> > syntax, by this example it means $ can be passed to a 
> > shortint type formal ?
> 
> -- 
> 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, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 

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