RE: [sv-cc] vpiParent proposal update

Chuck,

I'm happy with the content now.

I would like to offer a few editing suggestions.

(1) The rest of IEEE Std 1800-2005 uses "multidimensional"
(unhyphenated) rather than "multi-dimensional".  We should
do the same.

(2) Similarly, we should not hyphenate "packed array" or
"unpacked array", even when the phrase is used as an
adjective.

(3) Remove the first bullet under "Nets'.  That is, use
"Struct or union net" rather than "Struct, or union net".

(4) In both write-ups, I'm wondering if it would be clearer
to say "or no prefix object meets at least one of the above
criteria" rather than "or some prefix object does not meet
at least one of the above criteria".

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Engineering Director                   (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information." 
----------------------------------------------------------  

]-----Original Message-----
]From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On 
]Behalf Of Chuck Berking
]Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:48 PM
]To: sv-cc@eda-stds.org
]Subject: [sv-cc] vpiParent proposal update
]
]All-
]I have updated my vpiParent proposal (Mantis item #1684) to reflect
]my current view that "validity" (the vpiValid property) should not
]have a bearing on whether vpiParent for a given object exists.
]
]The fact that an object exists as compiled in the design (the "compile-
]invariant" point Jim mentioned for class-vars), in my view, is
]sufficient
]to justify allowing a vpiParent to exist for dynamic objects, even
]though
]their value may not be valid.  If a handle to a design object can be
]obtained, its vpiParent handle must also be obtainable (for qualifying
]prefixes).
]
]I have corrected other minor errors including "validity" mentioned for
]the Nets section(!).
]
]As always, I welcome feedback.
]Regards,
]Chuck
]
]-- 
]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.