Re: [sv-ac] Q: verification statements

Hi John,

In any case, don't you think that the beginning of the clause 16.14
suffers from some terminological confusion as I noted below?

Best Regards,

Johan

| 
| Hi,
| 
| That part (16.14) seems inconsistent w.r.t. to terminology: The heading
| reads "Concurrent assertions". The first paragraph talks about
| "verification statement", whereas the second paragraph again talks about
| "concurrent assertion statement". Are these two terms meant to refer to
| the same thing? In that case why not settle for one of them? I
| personally prefer "verification statement" since it seems strange to
| group assumes and covers under "concurrent assertions".
| 
| Regards,
| 
| Johan M
| 
  
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:13:35AM -0500, John Havlicek wrote:
> 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.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Mårtensson                 Office: +46 31 7451913
Jasper Design Automation         Mobile: +46 703749681 
Arvid Hedvalls backe 4           Fax: +46 31 7451939
411 33 Gothenburg, Sweden        Skype ID: johanmartensson
------------------------------------------------------------

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