Subject: Re: Voting on ISSUE 1.6 - My vote
From: Michael Rohleder (michael.rohleder@motorola.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 09:05:18 PST
-Michael
Swapnajit Mittra wrote:
> o Ballot
>
> The ballot is due by Friday midnight (US Pacific). Please mark your
> vote by 'Y' (Yes), 'N' (No) or 'A' (Abstain). Comments are welcome
> but DO NOT INTER-PARSE YOUR COMMENT WITH THE BALLOT - add it at the
> end. Please cut-paste the following in your reply.
>
> ----------------------- Ballot --------------------------------------
>
> (0)
> a. Y
> b. Y
> c. Y
> d. Y
>
> (1)
> a. Y
> b. Y
> c. Y
>
> (2)
> a. Y
> b. Y
>
> (3)
> (i) Y
> (ii) Y
> (iii) Y
> (iv) Y
>
> (4)
> a. A
> b. A
> c. A
>
> (5)
> a. Y
> b. Y
>
> (6)
> a. Y
> b. Y
> c. Y
>
> (7) Y
>
> (8) Y
>
> (9) Y
>
> (10)
> a. Y
> b. Y
> c. Y
>
> (11) a. Y
> b. Y
> c. Y
> d. A
>
> (12) A
>
> (13) a. Y
> b. A
>
> (14) Y
>
> (15) NO VOTE ON THIS ITEM - withdrawn.
>
> (16) Y
>
> (17) A
> ----------------------- Ballot --------------------------------------
Remarks:
2a) I still don't like the phrasing of 2a). It is simply too ambigous. I don't have a better proposal, but I have a lot of discussions in the past about 'passing simulation time' and 'delta cycles' and blocking vs. non-blocking. Unfortunately there seems
not to be a good taxonomy for such cases ...
4) From a user's point of view this is fine. But I think a more granular distinction method may help in permitting further optimizations. If the EDA vendors are fine with this, O.K. with me, but I can think of much more here...
6) Under the condition that $root scope is the only scope as decided in the meeting on Tuesday
7) Under the condition that the exact match option is selected as decided in the meeting on Tuesday.
8) I would recommend to make the 'direction' mandatory; no default, not optional. Besides that I think the BNF description is a little bit too excessive.
13) under the condition that it is clearly stated in the observation that this proposal is not covering the C side as decided in the Wednesday meeting
14) under the condition that this topic is revisited after looking from the C side, as decided in the Wednesday meeting
16) I like the idea, but not the syntax
17) we agreed on the proposal as it stands, but revisit this after looking at it from the C side. Basically I think Kevin is right in asking for ALL return values, but I can see some good reasons for this restrictions. So let's first focus on what is
always do-able and revisit this after looking at the C side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 09:06:35 PST