Re: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote -1609

Gord,

In your original description in Mantis you wrote --

  "Rather than restructuring the class declaration part of the grammar,
we can just add
a simple semantic restriction for this case."

I have long argued that semantic restrictions should not be imposed via
grammar productions.  See slides 5,6,7 in

   http://www.eda-stds.org/sv/F2F_14_Nov_2003/BNF_status.pdf

I have suggested getting rid of the constant_expression sub-BNF, too.

Personally, I think the right way to add the semantic restriction in the
particular case of Mantis 1609 is via a BNF footnote.  If you want to
also note the semantic restriction in the text for the convenience of
the reader, that's fine with me.  

But the proposal as written has other problems.  As I pointed out
before, it drops the restriction into a paragraph from out of the blue
and is not reader-friendly.  Plus the proposed phrase "have an import
statement directly within a class scope" seems too informal to me.  

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:37 AM
To: Brad Pierce
Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; Vreugdenhil, Gordon
Subject: Re: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote -1609

Brad, I disagree that putting something like this in even a normative
footnote is sufficient *for the reader*.  Part of an LRM is to be
express restrictions, etc. in a manner that is conducive to the reader;
putting such a restriction only in a footnote (even though normative) is
not very helpful to the reader.

Gord

Brad Pierce wrote:
> This restriction doesn't belong in the body of the text, it belongs in

> the normative footnotes of the BNF.  I will continute to vote 'no' on 
> the current version of the proposal.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:57 AM
> To: Rich, Dave; Brad Pierce; sv-champions@eda.org
> Cc: Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote -1609
> 
> I don't feel this is major enough to justify voting NO.
> 
> Shalom
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org 
>> [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:02 AM
>> To: Brad Pierce; sv-champions@server.eda.org
>> Cc: Vreugdenhil, Gordon
>> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote -1609
>>
>> I tend to agree that the sentence is out of place, but I still 
>> believe
> 
>> it belongs in this clause, perhaps one sentence later, or after both 
>> explicit and wildcard imports are introduced. But I would be willing 
>> to open up another mantis item to move it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv- 
>>> champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
>>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:23 PM
>>> To: sv-champions@server.eda.org
>>> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote
>>>
>>> Neil,
>>>
>>> I vote NO on three items -- 1609, 1556, 1723
>>>
>>>     http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1609
>>>
>>>         1) The new text is out of place where proposed, as becomes
>> more
>>> apparent if you look at the full original paragraph instead of just
>> the
>>> proposal in isolation.  The better place for this restriction is a 
>>> normative footnote in the BNF, specifically on the first
>> production in
>>> class_property of A.1.8.  It should say something like, "It
>> shall be
>>> illegal for a data_declaration in a class_property to be a 
>>> package_import_declaration."

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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