Re: [sv-ac] Q: verification statements

Hi Erik:

We should be careful about eliminating the use of the phrase
"concurrent assertion".  We have had that phrase for a long time, and
there has been a basic dichotomy between "immediate assertions" and
"concurrent assertions".

A problem with the phrase "concurrent assertion" is that when you
compare it with the syntax of the concurrent assertion statements, it
suggests that we only mean "assert property" because of the close
relation of "assertion" to "assert".

However, I worry that replacing "concurrent assertion statement" with
"concurrent verification statement" is also not ideal because
"verification statement" read literally is too vague.  A reader may
wonder if this phrase applies to non-assertion statements as well.

A better solution may be to find a place in Clause 16 to define terms 
and then use them consistently.

J.H.


>  
> I've reviewed 1995 (concurrent assertions in loops) vs 1737 (fixing some
> language in 16.14.5).  They don't touch the same part of the text, but I
> had a question about some phrasing that I may need to sync up 1995 with.
> 
> 1737 uses the term "verification statements".  I forget, did we agree
> that this is the best general term describing assert, assume, and cover
> statements?  In that case, rather than phrasing 1995 as "concurrent
> assertions" in loops, I should probably modify the phrasing to
> "concurrent verification statements".
> 
> But do we also need to change the title of section 16.14.5?  Right now
> it's "Embedding concurrent assertions in procedural code".
> 
> -- 
> 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.