RE: [sv-dc] RE: Revised proposal for 3398 and response to Shalom's comments

I understand the desire to keep the new type of nets separate, but this proposal already relates to these as a special case of the general case of nets, and not as an entirely type of data object. They also have a lot in common with regular nets, and you don't want to have to repeat for these new nets whatever descriptions about regular nets are applicable to them also.

Like it or not, there already is some unification and you already rely on it.

I suggest defining new terms to denote nets with and without user-defined nettypes that would not be unwieldy to use. (As you said, 'atomic net' was such an attempt. However, in this version, 'atomic net' means something a little different.)

Then you could say at the beginning of 6.7 that this subclause only applies to nets without user-defined nettypes (using whatever term you define.)

Regards,
Shalom

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: Francoise Martinolle; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-dc] RE: Revised proposal for 3398 and response to Shalom's comments

On 8/23/2011 1:33 AM, Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
Hi,

I still have a problem with the sentence in 6.7, "The default initialization value for a net shall be the value z."
Maybe you should add a qualifier to that sentence, like the proposal does in 7.2.2.

We had originally tried to use a qualified term (atomic net)
so that we didn't run into such things. Is 6.7 your only
objection? I really don't want to go through the entire
LRM to scrub every use of the word "net". It is clear
in context that existing text is talking about "legacy"
nets while the text in 7.2.2 clearly breaks out the case
of nets with user defined nettypes. The same kind of
thing is happening with the "type" rules -- 6.7 gives the
type rules for a traditional "net" while 7.2.2 is refining
those rules for the specific case of net with a user
defined netttype.

I really don't think that it is a good idea to try to unify
this -- keeping the rule sets separate does make it clear
(particularly for a new feature) that there is nothing
changed in the existing rules for legacy nets and this
is simply adding rules that are specific for the new
functionality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.