Re: updates for Thursday's ISAC meeting

Peter,

I am reading LCS 113 in connection with IR2054 as well as
some parts of IR2038. The wording of the new bullet added
on page 6 of  the LCS (version 1.5) caused some confusion
for me initially.

The way it is written, this bullet has several sub-bullets that
address different cases, and it was difficult for me to verify
any overlap or holes in the coverage. One of the items from
IR2038 mentions exactly such issues in this section of the LRM.

I have a suggestion for a slightly different organization. Please see
if this makes any sense.

The current organization appears to be on the following lines.

    - For array type interface object or array type subelement
      - Formal declared with index constraints
      - Formal declared without index constraints
         - Multiple association elements OR
            Single association element, and formal a slice
         - Associated in whole OR
            Single association element, and formal not a slice

Is this right? If so, I was wondering whether this would be better
organized as follows, where the complementory cases are
grouped together:

    - For array type interface object or array type subelement
       - Formal declared with index constraints
       - Formal declared without index constraints
           a) Single association element
               i)    Associated in whole
               ii)   Formal not a slice
               iii)  Formal a slice
           b) Multiple association elements

The description about how to address these cases would remain more
or less unchanged. Items (a)(i) and (a)(ii) could share the description,
while (a)(iii) and (b) could have the same description.

Regards,

-ajay


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Swart" <cswart@model.com>
To: <isac@eda.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:18 AM
Subject: ISAC: updates for Thursday's ISAC meeting


> IRs 2074 and 2086 have been updated.
> LCS 113 supersedes IR 2054.
> This LCS has deep consequences, so I would like
> you to read it carefully. But if you don't have time
> the area aroung page 6 deals most closely with IR 2054.
>
> If you can't get access to LCS 2006-113, let me know and I'll
> send you a copy (The isac mailing list won't accept it because
> it places a Draconian limit on file sizes)
>
> Also, in my notes for IR 2074 I have a statement:
>
> "There was also confusion about wording regarding actuals. The
> visibility rules favoring select names are intended to
> apply to local parameters used as actuals, not to all actuals."
>
> Can anyone speak to the reason for this? I thought that clauses h)
> through m) were pretty clear about this.
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------