RE: [sv-ac] d4 review feedback

My notes are also reflected correctly.

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:36 AM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] d4 review feedback

Hi John,

My notes are reflected correctly.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:53 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] d4 review feedback

Hi Folks:

Please find attached the D4 review feedback to be sent to 
Stu.

Please review my rendering of the comments as LRM changes and
send any feedback.

I would like to have a voice vote on this in our next meeting
so that we can approve it and send it on.

Ed:  I decided not to include your comments about the Courier-Bold
font on keywords used in the text passages.  Your response to me
was that the editor could decide on these. I think Stu has already 
explained what is going on: 

> 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.


The question still lingers about proving to ourselves that
"!(bit'(b!=0))" really gives the correct representation of the "else"
guard for procedural "if...else" when b is multi-bit 4-state.

J.H.


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