[sv-cc] RE: Correction inputs for clause 36 dyn objects proposal

Appreciate it, Chuck.  All good feedback and I will take all of it into
the next rev.
-John

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Berking [mailto:berking@cadence.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:27 PM
To: Shields, John
Cc: sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: Correction inputs for clause 36 dyn objects proposal

John-
Below are corrections for your clause 36 proposal as promised- mostly
minor:

1) 36.2.1  bullet "5)":  "vpi_multi" --> "vpi_handle_multi"

2) 26.2.2  bullet "2)" under text "Simulation events or actions may also
cause certain handles to be released, in particular:"
           "any subelement of this objects" --> "... these objects"

3) 36.25  Detail 1:  "reflects source code view" --> "reflects the
source code view"

4) 36.26   Under class var datamodel object: "referenced indentify" -->
"referenced indentity"

5) 36.26  Detail 3:  "guaranteed ti be unique" --> "guaranteed to be
unique"

6) 36.26  Detail 4:  "vpiObjId is the identifier of the object it
references or the special value vpiNullObj, indicating it is not
referencing any object"
              -->    "vpiObjId is the 64-bit numeric identifier of the
object it references, or 0, indicating ..."

  [ I believe this clarifies this by distinguishing what we mean by
"identifier" (not a string), and avoids the need to have a "special"
value, assuming ZERO is "special enough" by being equivalent to C
Boolean FALSE.  I.e. I think we may want to reserve "vpiNullObj" for
something like a general purpose VPI *handle* type.]

7) 36.36  Detail 2 (cbEndOfFrame):  "... frame is about to go out of
scope." --> "... frame is about to end."

  [ My suggestion only- keep as-is if you feel strongly it should stay
that way. ]

Regards,
Chuck

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