ISAC: Minutes from meeting on 22 May 2008

these are also on the website.

Chuck Swart


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


Minutes of ISAC meeting held via telecom on 23 May 2008

Present: Peter Ashenden, Larry Soule, N.S. Subramanian Chuck Swart, Lance Thompson

Absent: Jim Lewis, Ajay Verikat

Next meeting:  Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 8 pm Pacific Daylight time.
              (Thursday, May 29, 2008, 3 am GMT) 

TOPIC: IR 2130 Ability to overload the assignment operator := would be useful.

We will defer this until after we finish imminent approval of the new standard.
Although normally we would simply forward this as an enhancement request, the ISAC
might choose to do some preliminary technical analysis before forwarding.

TOPIC: IRs recently approved by the VASG.

IRs 2124, 2126, 2127, 2128 and 2129 were unanimously approved without
comment.  IR 2123 , Process resumption and callbacks, had one
abstention, one negative vote and one positive comment.  The negative
vote stated: "I think the standard should specify one point or the
other. Otherwise the user of this callback can't assume one way or the
other and there is no simple way to get the other functionality. My
preference is the call back should occur only if the wait condition is
true." IR 2123 passes, but the ISAC will report this negative comment
along with the fact that several people do not like the proposed
solution. IR 2129 had one positive comment and one negative vote (from
the original submitter). IR 2129 passes by consensus.  Note that all
these IRs have already been incorporated into version D4.2 of the
draft LRM, in anticipation of a favorable vote.

ACTION: Chuck to update status and to contact VHPI.

TOPIC: Bugz 208 D4.2 simple typos

The first 14 or so items were examined. All were accepted as bugs/typos
with the following comments/exceptions:
Item 5: the current reference is correct
Item 6: "e element types" should be "the elements types"
Item 13: Peter will analyze this section to see if other similar confusing
wording is present.
Peter has agreed to look at all items in this Bugz and to either fix them as
requested or to identify problems/misanalyses/etc.

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 212 Inconsistent treatment for PSL declarations

A PSL is not a true declaration in the VHDL sense, because no new
designator is introduced. It is more similar to an attribute
specification. So it is appropriate that it not be given in the lis of
decls in 6.1. It might be appropriate to move clause 6.11 to clause 7
on specifications. However, the placement of something called a "decl"
in that section might cause confusion. Instead, it was agreed to leave
clause 6.11 where it is, but to add a note explaining that a PSL clock
declaration is not a true declaration in the ordinary VHDL sense.

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 210 ?? for STD_ULOGIC still listed in table in 9.2.9
This bugz is accepted.

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 216 Clause title on VHDL-87 is out of date.
This Bugz is accepted.

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 224 In glossary, some references are out of order.
This Bugz is accepted. Although it is done manually, sorting the
references is fairly easy--finding the unsorted references is more
difficult. However, it is likely that the IEEE editor will sort the
references, so for consistency the master document will need to be sorted.

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 227 glossary entry for expanded name has incorrect reference

The reference was inadvertantly dropped fro VHDL-2002 and should be restored.
However the missing reference is not completely correct. More analysis needs to
be done.

ACTION: Analysis needed.

TOPIC: Bugz 209 Line numbers don't align

This can't be fixed in Framemaker.

ACTION: Will not fix.

TOPIC: Bugz 211 

This bugz is accepted.
subclause d) of 4.5.1 should be changed to something like:
" d) When the prefix of an attribute reference denotes an alias
rules 1) 2) and 3) of rule c) apply."

ACTION: Assign to Peter.

TOPIC: Bugz 214 Semantics of some READ procedures are not complete

The problem seems to be genuine.

ACTION: All to review to decide if the recommended wording is what we want.