Re: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th

Neil,

I vote 'Yes' on all 3, with the comments that


--- 2226 ---

    --- 2226-1 ---
       I consider the noted issues to be editorial issues, some of which
Stu can unilaterally resolve, and some of which he requires some help
from the SV-CC.  Approval of the resolution now will not prevent Stu's
(with assistance from SV-CC) doing a good editorial implementation of
the intended changes.


--- 1900 ---
   
    --- 1900-1 ---
       The following formulation is strange 

      "A checker may be instantiated wherever a concurrent assertion may
appear (see 16.15).
It shall be illegal to instantiate checkers in fork...join,
fork...join_any, or fork...join_none
blocks."

    I assume the first sentence is intended to imply that a checker may
not appear in places where concurrent assertions may not appear.  But
then wouldn't the second sentence be redundant?   Shouldn't it be "In
particular, it is illegal to instantiate ..."?  It's also strange that
this second sentence begins a new paragraph.

   --- 1900-2 ---
      Because these are redundant

     "modules, interfaces and programs shall not be either declared or
instantiated inside
checkers"

     "Modules, interfaces and programs shall not be instantiated inside
checkers."

   in the first sentence it would be better to delete "either" and "or
instantiated".

   --- 1900-3 ---
      A checker can be declared within a checker, yet checker
declarations are not listed after

        "A checker body may contain the following elements ..."

   --- 1900-4 ---
      Why is there no mention of packages in this sentence?

        "Checkers may be declared inside modules, programs, interfaces,
and other checkers, but modules, interfaces and programs shall not be
either declared or instantiated inside checkers."


-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:53 PM
To: sv-champions@eda.org
Cc: sv-sc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th

SystemVerilog Champions,

This is a call for an abbreviated email vote. As we agreed to in the
conference call this morning, this email vote will run for 6 days,
ending
on Wednesday, August 13th (7pm PST).


List of Mantis items for a Champion's email vote:
-------------------------------------------------
1. 2226  Approve the proposal                  Yes ___ No ___ Abstain
___
2. 2088  "Conditionally" approve the proposal  Yes ___ No ___ Abstain
___
3. 1900  Approve part2, pages 10-16            Yes ___ No ___ Abstain
___


Notes:

a. Mantis 2088 is a set of changes on top of Mantis 1900.

    This vote is to "conditionally approve" 2088.
    Mantis 2088 will pass, only if 2088 "conditionally" passes in this
email
    vote and mantis 1900 ends up passing.

    The reason for doing this is to get out on the table any issues that
    the Champions have with 2088.

b. Mantis 1900, part2 was only partially reviewed in the meeting today.

    The purpose of this email vote is to get out on the table any
remaining
    issues with the remainder of the proposal.


Please bear with me on this, I am trying to find a way to get as much
done
before the Working Group meeting next week.


Neil


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


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