RE: [sv-cc] vpiParent proposal update

Oops, the first sentence under (3) should have
read "Remove the comma from the first bullent under 'Nets'."

Regards,
Jim V.

--------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Jim Vellenga
]Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:30 AM
]To: Chuck Berking; sv-cc@eda-stds.org
]Subject: 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.
]
]
]

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