RE: [sv-champions] Champions email vote - ending May 14th

I believe Steve's argument was about a problem with ref arguments to
covergroups in general, not specifically to clarifying that the clocking
event could be an argument to a covergroup. In such case, only a ref
argument makes sense. I think Steve's issue is orthogonal to the ballot
comment. I believe is comment that this would encourage more use of ref
arguments is moot. Ref arguments are already in heavy use, and multiple
implementations already support the use of a clock as a covergroup
argument (which caused this ballot comment to be raised in the first
place)


BTW, I vote yes on all issues



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-
> champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:31 AM
> To: Brad Pierce
> Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Subject: Re: [sv-champions] Champions email vote - ending May 14th
> 
> Hi Brad,
> 
> I believe the change in mantis 2711 is a clarification, not an
enhancement.
> 
> Steven Sharp was quite vocal about not wanting to approve this change.
It
> was
> Steven that mentioned that he thought it could possibly cause a no
vote on
> the re-ballot of the LRM. Cliff decided to also vote no, after he
heard
> Steven mention the part about the no vote on the re-ballot. Tom didn't
> give a reason for his no vote. Tom voted no after hearing Steven and
Cliff
> vote no. Tom had voted yes during the email vote.
> 
> believed to be clean.


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