[sv-champions] RE: [sv-ac] alignment to Draft 3

Lisa,

Regarding the updated proposal for 1601:


1. In both 16.7.1 and in 16.12.1, "comma separated" appears without a
hyphen. It should be hyphenated. (Should be corrected in 16.9 also.)


2. The new text in 16.7.1, 

"There are two ways to achieve implicit typing of arguments. The first
is to write the implicitly typed arguments at the beginning of the
formal argument list, prior to any typed argument. The second is to use
the context type. Because a type applies to multiple comma-separated
arguments, the context type is required if an implicitly typed argument
is to be placed after a typed argument in the formal argument list. The
context type specifies that the semantics for binding to the argument
shall be as though the argument were written at the beginning of the
formal argument list, prior to any typed argument."

should appear earlier, after 

"A formal argument that is not prefixed by a type shall be untyped. A
type name can refer to a comma separated list of arguments," 

as a new paragraph, before 

"Exporting values of local variables through typed formal arguments is
not supported,"

because the new text is a continuation of the subject of untyped
arguments.

The same applies to the change in 16.12.1.


3. The terminology should be consistent. Is it "untyped" or "implicitly
typed"?


4. Cross-references need to be updated.

"The supported data types for sequence formal arguments are the types
that are allowed for operands in assertion expressions (see 17.4.1)."

should refer to 16.5.1.


5. "The assignment rules for assigning actual argument expressions to
formal arguments, at the time of sequence instantiation, are the same as
the general rules for doing assignment of a typed variable with a typed
expression (see Clause 4)."

The cross-reference should have been to Clause 6, as in Draft 3a.
However, in any case, the xref is too vague. Where in Clause 6 is being
referred to? Is it 6.22 (Type compatibility)?


6. "For example, three similar ways of passing arguments are shown
below. The first has untyped arguments, and the second and third have
equivalent typed arguments."

I don't though what 'equivalent' means here. This is especially
confusing because 'type equivalence' has a very specific meaning in
6.22.


Without these corrections, I would be forced to vote against this in the
Champions meeting.


Thanks,
Shalom



> I have updated the proposals for 1601, 1704, and 1466. I 
> still have to do 1722.
> 
> Lisa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] alignment to Draft 3
> 
> All:
> 
> The following proposals are up for review by the champions:
> 
> 1460   Allow actions within assume property statement
> 1466   shortcuts for delay and consecutive repetition
> 1543   Meaningless sentence in 17.15 and Annex H
> 1550   $sampled function definition
> 1567   22.9: in Syntax 22-7, should be no semicolon
> 1591   17.7.3, 22.9: $past syntax not precise
> 1601   new keyword for untyped formal arguments
> 1648   Default reset for assertions
> 1674   Context value functions
> 1677   Add $changed sampled value function
> 1704   need to specify behavior of attached subroutine on empty seq
> match
> 1722   there exists bind inconsistencies between the BNF and the text
> 
> 
> It has been noted that these are not all aligned to Draft 3a.
> 
> I recall when Draft 3 came out that we made a decision not to 
> go back through the proposals that had already been passed, 
> but at this point I think we have to align them all.  
> 
> Can the owners of these proposals please make the necessary 
> minor modifications to ensure that the section numbering and 
> references are correct?  I do not think we need to re-vote 
> these items.
> 
> J.H.

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