RE: [sv-champions] Email vote ending October 2

I vote YES to all except 2093.

    http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2093

Because some of the restrictions seem arbitrary, and there's no justification given for them in the preamble.

1) "If the argument has an explicit direction qualifier, it shall be an error to omit its type." Why? "untyped" is a natural default, especially considering that "if the argument is the first argument of the checker, it is assumed to be input untyped". I can omit "untyped" only if I also omit "input"? Why?

2) "The type of an output argument shall not be of untyped, sequence, or property." Why not "untyped"? Very inconvenient. Even example 1 in the preamble uses "output untyped".

Unless there are compelling reasons for these inconveniences, I think "output untyped" should be legal and the default type for both "input" and "output" should be "untyped".

Other minor issues,

In "In a similar manner to sequences and properties a checker declaration may specify a default value for each singular input port", the first part seems superfluous to me in a standard. Why not just "A checker declaration may specify a default value for each singular input port"?

"A.18" should be "A.1.8".

________________________________________
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik [neil.korpusik@oracle.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:57 PM
To: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-champions] Email vote ending October 2

Reminder, tomorrow is the last day for this email vote.

Neil

On 09/24/11 20:17, Neil Korpusik wrote:
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved
> state. There are 9 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put all
> of them into this email vote. There are still some from the last email
> vote which some Champions requested additional time to review. I did not
> include those in this email vote. Those will come up for a vote again in
> the next email vote.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until October 2, midnight (PST) to cast your
> votes.
>
> We are getting to the end of the timeline for this PAR, so the votes
> are coming closer together.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the
> resolved state. There are 9 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have
> put all of them into this email vote. There are still some from the last
> email vote which some Champions requested additional time to review. I
> did not include those in this email vote. Those will come up for a vote
> again in the next email vote.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until October 2, midnight (PST) to cast your
> votes.
>
> We are getting to the end of the timeline for this PAR, so the votes are
> coming closer together.
>
> Neil
>
>
> 1. 1356 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1356> SV-EC Multiple
> inheritance
> There is a proposal (11 pages)
> Unanimously approved in sv-ec September 12 2011 meeting.
> 1356_Interface_Classes_rev12.pdf
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 2. 2081 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2081> SV-BC Not clear
> enough which kinds of statements are prohibited in always_comb
> There is a proposal (1 page)
> On September 12, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
> proposal.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 3. 2547 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2547> SV-AC local
> variable read before write
> No change required
> Passed by voice vote 2011-08-16: 9y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 4. 3015 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3015> SV-AC Examples of
> $fatal have bad arguments
> There is a proposal (1 page)
> The amended proposal passed by voice vote 2011-08-18: 9y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 5. 3202 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3202> SV-AC Clarify on
> whether certain system functions are allowed in classes, 'let',
> and other corner cases
> Duplicate of 2476
> Approved by voice vote 2011-08-02: 7y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 6. 3213 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3213> SV-AC Update
> definition of sampled value
> There is a proposal (11 pages)
> Amended proposal passed by email vote 2011-08-01: 8y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 7. 3326 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3326> SV-BC LRM in BNF
> allows parameters declaration under generate, while in generate
> chapter it is forbidden
> There is a proposal (a 2-line change)
> On July 18, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
> proposal.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 8. 2289 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2289> SV-BC 6.20.1
> should say that generate block and compilation unit-scope
> parameters are local
> There is a proposal (a 2-line change)
> On July 18, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
> proposal.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 9. 2093 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2093> SV-AC Checker
> construct should permit output arguments
> There is a proposal (6 pages)
> Approved by voice vote 2011-09-20: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>

--
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.