RE: [sv-champions] Re: Agenda for December 20th meeting

Hi,

I won't be at the meeting either. I have to deal with something in the
family. Here are some comments on Dave's.


> 2.  2217 SV-BC  Name resolution - hierarchical and member select rules
>     - Fixed
>     - Approved on December 3, 2007 with one abstain.
> 
>       Abstain: Shalom (not completely satisfied with placement 
> 		       nor term "directly visible")
> OK - "directly visible" is clear if you read the next bullet

I disagree. I don't think the next bullet explains why s1 is directly
visible. It also seems to conflict with Francoise's proposal for 1809
(still unapproved by SV-BC), which defines the term 'locally visible',
which intuitively seems to be intended to mean the same thing since the
term 'directly visible' is never defined, in a way which seems to
exclude s1.

But since no one else on SV-BC agreed with me, I would only abstain on
this and not vote No, unless someone else from the Champions also agrees
with me.


> 6.  2178 SV-BC  BNF error in constant_primary
>     - Fixed
>     - Unanimously approved via e-mail vote closed December 3, 2007
> OK - proposal should say that inner braces should be red. It does say
> that in the simple description.

I have no problem with that clarification.


> 8.  2169 SV-BC  part-select terminology fuzzy
>     - Fixed
>     - December 3, 2007 the SV-BC unanimously approved
> Abstain. I'm not too happy with the term 'non-indexed' part 
> select. It's
> really dual index or single index with a width

'Indexed' is a common term in programming to refer to a base+offset
addressing, as opposed to an absolute address. I had originally proposed
'fixed', Francoise proposed 'non-indexed', and that was unanimously
accepted by SV-BC.


> 10. 2163 SV-BC  Clarify hierarchical scopes created (or not) by 
> 		for and foreach loops
>     - Fixed
>     - Unanimously approved via e-mail vote closed December 3, 2007
> 
> No. The first added sentence is missing a word that changes 
> the behavior
> of the paragraph.
> 
> This creates an implicit begin-end block around the loop, containing
> declarations of the "loop" variables with automatic lifetime.
> 
> "loop" is missing in the in the indicated position. It is correct in
> section 12.7.3. 

I agree to that change.


> 14. 2106 SV-BC  Clarifications needed for declaration before use of 
> 		objects and type
>     - Fixed
>     - SV-BC approved the attached proposal on December 3, 2007
> 
> 	  For: Francoise, Gord, Mike, Dave, Steven, Tom, Mark, Alex,
> Stu, 
> 	       Brad, Karen, Don
>       Opposed: Shalom - wording unclear. Text is not ordered well.
>       Abstain: Cliff  - would like to review Shalom's objections.
> OK. I would like this passed, even though another proposal 
> may overtake
> it. The objections are not strong enough to be rejected at 
> the chapions
> lebvel.

SV-BC passed on Monday my proposed revision to this. The new proposal
needs to be merged into the original one. The new proposal is not yet on
Mantis. I suggest this be postponed to the next meeting, when we can
vote on the updated proposal.


> 15. 2102 SV-BC  Unnecessary difference between packed and unpacked
> objects
>     - Fixed
>     - The SV-BC approved the attached proposal on December 3, 2007.
> 
>           For: Francoise, Gord, Mike, Dave, Steven, Tom, Mark, Alex,
> Stu, Brad, 
> 	       Karen, Don
>       Opposed: Shalom - would like time to address issues 
> with proposal 
> 			that he raised
> 	       Cliff  - weak opposition - prefers to give Shalom time to
> 
> 			address his concerns
> OK. I would like this passed, even though another proposal 
> may overtake
> it. The objections are not strong enough to be rejected at 
> the chapions
> lebvel.

A revision to this was also passed by SV-BC on Monday. In contrast to
2106, the updated proposal for 2102 is already on Mantis.

Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.