RE: [sv-ac] proposal for Mantis 1728

I suggest you add the explanation for these changes as an introduction
to the proposal or as a bugnote to the Mantis issue. Otherwise, the
motivation for this may be questioned at the Champions level.

Shalom
 

> p. 13.  Why is "operator_assignment" stricken from the 
> sequence_match_item 
>    production?  What is the technical consequence of this?
> 
> [Korchemny, Dmitry] The reason was to replace it with 
> local_var_assignment which would contain let expression in 
> sequences. It looks to me that a better way to incorporate a 
> let expression into the grammar is to make it a special kind 
> of expression and add to add a note limiting let 
> instantiation by properties, sequences, assertions etc.
> only.
> 
> Note also that the item concurrent_assertion_item_declaration 
> becomes problematic, since it may now be a let_statement, and 
> the let statement may be used in immediate assertions as 
> well. Therefore I am renaming it to assertion_item_declaration.

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