RE: [sv-ac] 1668-formal-semantics.pdf

OK, but we need to define it.

Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1668-formal-semantics.pdf

Hi Dmitry:

Hmm ... We have some broader untidiness here.  F.2.2 says its
notations apply to F.2.3, but obviously they are being used 
in other subclauses as well without further comment.

Probably what we should do is to broaden the scope of the 
notations F.2.2 to apply to the rest of the annex, unless stated
otherwise.

And we should add to F.2.2 notations:

. t denotes a type
. s, s_1, s_2 denote a sequences, either clocked or unclocked
. p, p_1, p_2 denote properties, either clocked or unclocked and
  either top-level or not

Here my intention is to use lower case s for the general
sequence and lower case p for the general property.

The notation specified in F.5 also uses lower case q for a general
property, so maybe we need it too.

What do you think?

J.H.

> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:37:28 -0500
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com, sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
> Reply-To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2007 14:37:30.0897 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CDE75010:01C7E400]
> 
> Hi Dmitry:
> 
> O.k., I'll make the symbols disjoint.  Greek letter should work.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> > X-ExtLoop1: 1
> > X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,289,1183359600"; 
> >    d="scan'208";a="265922294"
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:27:41 +0300
> > X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 1668-formal-semantics.pdf
> > Thread-Index: Acfj9dyfzhbFSdkATp6hJV4l9d48LwAACuZg
> > From: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>
> > Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2007 13:28:24.0221 (UTC)
FILETIME=[264AC4D0:01C7E3F7]
> > 
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > Then Clause F.2.2 has to be modified, since it explicitly states
that
> > "In F.2.3 the following notational conventions will be used:...",
and
> > your proposal belongs to Clause F.2.3. It is always better to use a
> > unified notation throughout the whole Annex F.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dmitry
> > 

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