[sv-ac] Minor updates to 2110 based on Champion feedback

Hi all-- 
I have attached a version that fixes the issues John mentions below.
The changes are pretty simple:  I eliminated the covergroup example,
which was optional anyway, to remove the 2088 dependency, fixed the
quotes, and added a variable declaration & clarification to the example
mentioned.   I think we should be able to voice-vote this tomorrow.  The
change-tracked doc is attached.

BTW-- I don't have permission to add these docs to the ticket in its
current state; John/Shalom/Dmitry, can you do this for me?  Thanks. 


-----Original Message-----


7.  2110    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___ 
	    SV-AC  Allow checkers in procedural for loops

    Rationale for negative vote:  I think that 2088 is changing in
response
    to comments from SV-EC in a way that will not be consistent with the

    conditional changes on pp. 4-5.  In particular, I am concerned about
whether
    a covergroup declaration will be allowed in a checker.

    Friendly amendments:
    - Smart quotes should not be used in the courier examples.
    - In the example beginning at the bottom of p. 2, the sampled value
of ok is
      1'b1 in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk due
to the
      initialization assignment.  It is true, although perhaps
misleading, to
      say that the sampled value is always equal to (my_bits[3] == 0).
This
      assumes, of course, that no other code updates my_bits.  The
declaration
      of control_variable_copy is not shown, and we do not know what its
sampled
      value is in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk.


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