[sv-ac] RE: Francoise's comments on 2005

Wait, you're saying someone actually used Mantis for its intended
purpose, instead of sending 1000 private emails?  I didn't know that was
allowed in our committee. :-)

Anyway, just took a look at them now.  I don't think either requires a
change currently, but we should clarify/discuss in email just in case
I'm missing something.  Tell me if my replies below make sense to you:

> The syntax assert #0 is misleading. Typically a #0 delay the following
statement until the next delta cycle. Whereas I understand that the
assertion is delayed until the end of the time bin (like nbas do) 

We arrived at the #0 after numerous discussions & debates; no choice was
perfect, but apparently there was high resistance to adding a keyword,
and nobody was enthusiastic about warping any particular current keyword
for this purpose.  Given that we have voted & approved in its current
form, I think it's best to keep this syntax rather than reopening that
can of worms.

> The current proposal states that section A.1.4 needs to be modified to
add deferred_immediate_assertion to the module_common_item.   This seems
incorrect. I thought that immediate assertions are found in procedural
code, non as concurrent statements. 

I think Francoise overlooked our section 16.4.3, which permits deferred
assertions in a non-procedural context.  That's why we have the addition
in A.1.4.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Seligman, Erik
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Francoise's comments on 2005

Hi Erik:

Were Francoise's comments on 2005 addressed?  See the bugnotes.

J.H.

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