RE: [sv-ac] Draft4 review

I did not make this specific change on purpose, it is an editorial error.
The problem is that when I cut and paste from PDF into FrameMaker, sometimes
underscores (and some other symbols) carry over, and sometimes they
disappear.  One would think that since both PDF and FrameMaker are from the
same company, there would be more compatibility between them, but sadly, it
is not the case.  I try to review the pasted text carefully for these
issues, but I missed this one.

The question now is, does this particular change need to be corrected?  In
my opinion, in this paragraph, saying "action_block" (italicized) and
"action block" (in regular font with no underscore) is clear, either way.

Regarding use of special fonts for keywords, the LRM is full of
inconsistencies, but I have been trying to make it more consistent as I add
in new changes.  I am not placing terms such as "if-else" and "always
procedure" in the Courier-Bold keyword font because they refer to a general
construct that has been defined elsewhere in the LRM.  For example "always
procedures" without the keyword font is defined to include "always",
"always_comb", "always_latch", and "always_ff" (see 9.2 for draft 4),
whereas "always" in Courier-Bold refers to just the "always" keyword
(perhaps when referring to a specific line in a code example).  The term
"if-else" is defined as a conditional statement, which might be just "if" or
as an "if...else" pair (see 12.4 of draft 4).

My suggestion is to try to follow the general LRM style for font
specializations in final proposals, but to not be overly concerned about
getting it perfect.  Font usage in a proposal is a guide for the editor, but
it should be the editor's responsibility to try to take care formatting
details and overall consistency.  Reviews after the changes are made, such
as this e-mail thread, are then used to determine if the editor
inadvertently changed the meaning of text when applying font
specializations.  The system of checks-and-balances we have works well.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:16 AM
> To: dmitry.korchemny@intel.com
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Draft4 review
> 
> Hi Dmitry:
> 
> O.k., then it seems that the editor changed this deliberately.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> > X-ExtLoop1: 1
> > X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,276,1188802800"; 
> >    d="scan'208";a="174045465"
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:09:03 +0200
> > X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] Draft4 review
> > Thread-Index: AcgOyjoCkT+yAUmgQkCLCi5iOnWWvQAL8YAQ
> > From: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>
> > Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2007 07:09:09.0137 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[47ECC010:01C80EFA]
> > 
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > In the proposal the font is italic and action_block is 
> written as one
> > word. There are several occurrences of action_block and all 
> of them are
> > italicized.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dmitry
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com]=20
> > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:24 AM
> > To: Korchemny, Dmitry
> > Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Draft4 review
> > 
> > Hi Dmitry:
> > 
> > It is possible that the implemented font is correct.
> > 
> > If the reference is not to the name of the non-terminal
> > (including underscores), then I think that the LRM treats
> > it just as text, with no italicization.
> > 
> > Consider whether or not underscores should be added to match=20
> > exactly the non-terminal.
> > 
> > J=2EH.
> > 
> > > X-ExtLoop1: 1
> > > X-IronPort-AV: E=3DSophos;i=3D"4.21,273,1188802800";=20
> > >    d=3D"scan'208";a=3D"298430546"
> > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> > > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:16:10 +0200
> > > X-MS-Has-Attach:=20
> > > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:=20
> > > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] Draft4 review
> > > Thread-Index: AcgGgta2LJweySBARtafp56XchnAMwH4OHKA
> > > From: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>
> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2007 13:16:27.0494 (UTC)
> > FILETIME=3D[6D656860:01C80E64]
> > >=20
> > > Hi all,
> > >=20
> > > I reviewed 1460 and fond the following issue:
> > >=20
> > > In 16.14.2 It is written:
> > >=20
> > > If it evaluates to false, the fail statements of the *** 
> action block
> > > *** are executed.
> > >=20
> > > Should be italicized action_block.
> > >=20
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dmitry
> > >=20
> > > P=3D2ES. I reopened this issue by mistake in Mantis, but 
> reversed my
> > changes
> > > (except for the history :( )
> > >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of John Havlicek
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:33 PM
> > > To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: [sv-ac] Draft4 review
> > >=20
> > > Hi Folks:
> > >=20
> > > We need to review the implementations in Draft4 of the following
> > Mantis
> > > items:
> > >=20
> > > 1361 [TS/MK]
> > > 1460 [DK]
> > > 1550 [EC]
> > > 1674 [EC] (consider reference to 1648)
> > > 1677 [DK]
> > > 1704 [LP]
> > > 1730 [EC]
> > > 1734 [JH]
> > > 1735 [LP]
> > > 1768 [LP]
> > >=20
> > > The owners of these items should review the 
> implementation and send
> > > the results to the reflector.  Please consider any 
> questions or issues
> > > in the notes from the Editor.
> > >=20
> > > I would like for the reviews to be completed in one week (by
> > > 2007-10-11).  If the owner cannot do the review in this 
> time, please
> > > try to find an alternate reviewer who can check the 
> implementation in
> > > Draft4.
> > >=20
> > > J=3D2EH.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > --=3D20
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Intel Israel (74) Limited
> > >=20
> > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential 
> material for
> > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or 
> distribution
> > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel Israel (74) Limited
> > 
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential 
> material for
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or 
> distribution
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> -- 
> 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.