RE: [sv-ac] New version of 1995 (concurrent asserts in loops) ready for review

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Wed Nov 28 2007 - 08:31:18 PST
Erikm


	1. P. 2 says,
	"In a foreach loop, the body shall not modify any dimension of
any array controlling the loop. All controlling arrays shall be
non-associative and have constant bounds."
	This 'constant bounds' is not clear to me. Is this just a
roundabout way of saying 'fixed-size'? How could a dynamic array or
queue qualify? Could a bounded queue qualify?

	Yes, fixed-size is what I meant.   Is that a better term to use
here than 'constant'?
	
	[SB] Yes, 'fixed-size' is the term used in the LRM.

	 
	7. I don't think the rewrite would be equivalent if the original
code would change foo or bar during the execution of the loops or if
something else could change them.
	

	Actually, I think it would be-- if I understand right, as we
have assertions in procedural 'if' statements defined now, the assertion
would just use the sampled values of foo and bar anyway.  So
intermediate values during the procedural code would not actually affect
it.  
	[SB] I looked at this a little, I felt it may not be dealt with
adequately by the rest of the text. It needs more looking at.

	 

	Shalom

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Received on Wed Nov 28 08:33:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 08:33:25 PST