TWiki> P1778 Web>Meetings>2008-09-22-Minutes (revision 3)EditAttach

22 Sept 2008 - Workgroup Meeting Minutes

  • Workgroup: P1778 - Esterel v7 language standardization
  • Location: Teleconference (see Next Meeting to connect)
  • Date: 22 Sept 2008
  • Chair: Gerard Berry
  • Vice Chair: Stephen Edwards
  • Secretary: Sylvan Dissoubray


  • Present: Gerard, Marc Perreaut, Sylvan, Ramesh, Eric, Charles, Luigi, Klaus, Raphael, Stephen, Mike, Marc Duranton, Shyam
  • Excused: Claus, Jean-Philippe, Badr
  • See Attendance Record for meetings participation history


  1. Agenda and process
  2. IEEE tkwiki site open
  3. Statements chapter
  4. Next meetings


  • Start: Chair declares the meeting open at 4:06
  • Agenda: The agenda is approved by participants
  • Minutes: No objections about last meeting minutes -- they are approved
  • Patents: No new item . The page IEEE Patent Policy holds the call for patent, and workgroup status.

Technical topics

Brief summary of discussion, pros and cons, and conclusions

Statements chapter comments

  • Comments were contributed on the wiki and on annotated pdf by the workgroup (Claus, Ramesh, Luigi, Shyam, ...). All reviewed and discussed during the meeting.

  • General impressions
    • EB: quite clear now.
    • SE: some imprecisions need to be fixed.
    • MD: comment about tags. semantics is good.
    • SE: semantics at the end ? GB: tradeoff, big chapter this way makes it more readable. Too many examples? (with default, without default).
    • MK: new presentation is nice, in general.

  • Tags: explicit toplevel section, the program conceptually has tags, etc. Move 12.1.4 after 12.2 (belongs to semantics).

  • KS: 12.1.5 Too detailed?

  • MD explain synchronous earlier than chapter 12 ? Think about what to define in the introductive overview and definitions

  • Semicolon Nobody wants semicolon as separator, everybody wants it to be a terminator. Agreed.

  • Brackets must be in syntax rules

  • Traps are necessarily outside parallel add a note

  • for dopar: shall be positive. If not, it is either a compile-time or run-time error. Better decide what kind of error. Also possible to decide that if not positive then is considered as nothing This seems a better option. Semantics is static expansion, compile-time or run-time: whichever (implementation choice). This question is related to to static_if and static_for. static_for and for (not expanded). The interest is because of the need to generate linear VHDL wrt Esterel source size.
    • SE: static statements are appreciated (discussed in C++). Just syntactic concern.
    • do seq has been asked. Only way seems to be static.
    • static before expression or before statement? nested expressions too complex.

  • repeat, positive or not. mandatory for dependency analysis. repeat until would be clearer. Think about index usage inside the repeat
    • similar to static discussion

  • clarify delayed suspend defnition

  • concurrent traps (trap T1, T2 in) have been removed to simplify the statements. No practical objection.

Motions and actions items with name and due date

Adjournment and Next meeting date

  • Next meeting will be about signals. Monday 20th October - 4 PM Paris time
  • Meeting is closed at 5:45 PM.
Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r3 - 2008-09-24 - 16:09:46 - SylvanDissoubray
Copyright © 2008-2021 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback