RE: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2089

I have not reviewed the proposal, but I happened to notice that in 1,
you refer to 'final block'. The term is 'final procedure'.
 
Shalom


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Thatcher
	Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:20 PM
	To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
	Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; Korchemny, Dmitry
	Subject: Re: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2089
	
	
	Hi Dmitry,
	
	I have made the following changes to 2089 in response to the
feedback:
	
	1.  I have made the following change to the definition of
checker body:
	
	
	Action blocks of assertions within a checker will be referred to
as checker action blocks, and the rest of the checker, with the
exception of any final block code, will be referred to as checker body. 
	
	2.  To clarify that variable declaration that appear within a
final block are local to the final block, I have added the following:
	
	

	Any variables defined within final procedures obey all the
normal scope rules (see 22.8).


	3.  I think I have fixed some of the font problems, but other
instances may still be lurking.  I have attached both the Word document
and the PDF.
	
	Is this sufficient?
	
	Tom
	
	John Havlicek wrote: 

		Hi Folks:
		
		Our ballot on 2089 failed due to negative vote.
		
		See the results below.
		
		J.H.
		
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
		Ballot on Mantis 2089
		
		- Called on 2007-12-20, final ballots due by 2007-12-30
T 23:59-08:00.
		
		yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx]
Doron Bustan (Intel)
		yv[xxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x]
Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
		 n[--------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x]
Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
		yv[xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------]
Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
		 t[xx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John
Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
		nv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx]
Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
		 v[xxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx]
Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
		 n[----------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-]
Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
		 n[-------x------------x--xxx.....................]
Joseph Lu (Altera)
		 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................]
Johan Martensson (Jasper)
		 n[-------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-]
Hillel Miller (Freescale)
		 v[xxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa
Piper (Cadence)
		yv[xxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik
Seligman (Intel)
		 n[-----x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej
Singh (Mentor Graphics)
		yv[xxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
		yv[xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom
Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
		   |-----------------------------------------------
attendance on 2007-12-18
		 |-------------------------------------------------
voting eligibility for this ballot
		|--------------------------------------------------
email ballots received
		
		        Legend:
		                x = attended
		                - = missed
		                r = represented
		                . = not yet a member
		                v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4
overall)
		                n = not a valid voter
		                t = chair eligible to vote only to make
or break a tie
		
		
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
		Rationale for Negative Vote
		
		[DK]
		
		* A refinement of "checker body" is needed. Currently
"checker body" is
		defined as everything in the checker except of assertion
action blocks.
		Apparently, final procedure imposes different
limitations than other
		stuff from "checker body" does. This also includes the
argument passing:
		if a formal argument is used in a final procedure, a
corresponding
		actual argument cannot depend on checker variables,
etc.=20
		* Do you want to make a declaration of regular variables
legal in
		checkers since they may be used in final procedures, or
shall they
		remain illegal, and the variables used in final
procedures should be
		declared there locally (I prefer the latter option)?
This needs to be
		explicitly mentioned.
		* Friendly amendment: The new text should be in Times
New Roman, and not
		in Arial (page 3).
		
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
		Friendly Amendments
		
		[BT]
		
		- Add pointer to 2182 for VPI
		- Remove mention of VPI "may need change" -- "final" is
covered in
		"process"
		
		  


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