RE: [sv-ac] vote for 1648

 I also vote no for the reasons cited by Manisha.  In addition, in the
Syntax 14-3 and 14.12 the change is incomplete.  The "from" and "to" are
identical.

 

Lisa

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:58 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] vote for 1648

 

Hi,

 

I vote 'no'.  I feel 1757 needs to align to this proposal in some
places. Also, I do not feel very comfortable with the usage of term
"disable condition' for the expression used in disable iff, accept_on
and reject_on.  Semantically they produce different results so the
expression should also be called something different. I would prefer if
disable condition is used for disable iff and accept and reject
conditions use a different terminology. 

 

The last word in the following sentence does not look correct.

 

However, if a nested module, interface, or program declaration itself
has a

default disable declaration, then that default disable applies within
the nested declaration and overrides any

default disable from without.

 

Thanks.

Manisha


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

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