RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Action Item: Pls take another look at 2173, 2326, 2327

Thanks Jim.   I believe you are correct, that of these three only 2326
really needs CC approval.

I'm confused by your final question though-- isn't the CC having a
scheduled meeting tomorrow anyway, where this vote can take place?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Vellenga [mailto:vellenga@cadence.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:59 AM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-cc@eda.org; Charlie Dawson
Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; john.havlicek@freescale.com;
Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Action Item: Pls take another look at 2173,
2326, 2327

Erik, if I understand these proposals correctly, 2173 and
2327 don't really need our approval, but are helpful explanations for
2326.  Is that correct?

SV-CC, I agree that 2326 looks straightforward.  Note that, while the
case property looks similar to the if and if-else properties in the BNF,
it has to be handled differently in the VPI object model.  The if and
if-else properties are treated as vpiOperations, but you can't do that
with the case property because it is more highly structured.

Then new "detail 4" shares an ambiguity with the detail it copied from
"36.62 Case, pattern."  It's not clear which of the two iterations
associated with "case item"
is meant.  It would be better to have said "vpi_iterate(vpiExpr,...)" to
make clear which iteration is referred to.  But since we have the same
ambiguity in 36.62, I can't really argue that the SV-AC should fix it
here.

Charles and SV-CC, I presume we need another meeting to vote on this?

Regards,
Jim Vellenga

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Software Architect                     (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
Seligman, Erik
]Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:19 AM
]To: sv-cc@eda.org; Charlie Dawson
]Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; john.havlicek@freescale.com;
]Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
]Subject: [sv-cc] SV-CC Action Item: Pls take another look at ]2173,
2326, 2327 ] ] ]Hi SV-CC:
]
]Can you guys try to take another look at these proposals ]before the
Wed.
]meeting, and see if we can get CC approval rather than having to refer
]them to the new committee?
]Thanks!
]
]
]
]-----Original Message-----
]From: owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org] On
]Behalf Of John Havlicek
]Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 6:50 AM
]To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-bc@server.eda.org;
]sv-cc@server.eda.org; sv-ec@server.eda.org; ieee1800@server.eda.org
]Cc: Bresticker, Shalom
]Subject: Re: [P1800] RE: [sv-cc] New P1800 technical committee - Call
]For Participation - reminder ] ]Hi Folks:
]
]I agree with Shalom.
]
]2173, 2326, and 2327 add "case" as a property building construct within
]concurrent assertions.  We already have "if-else", so this is primarily
]syntactic sugar.
]
]I do not think that these should be moved from SV-AC to the new
]sub-committee ] ]J.H.
]
]> Hi,
]>
]> > I think we should add to the list for this new committee (Erik) ]>
> ]> > 9.  2173 ]> > 10. 2326 ]> > 11. 2327 ]> ]> Is this Erik's
personal request or an SV-AC request?
]> Who decides what issues the new sub-committee deals with?
]>
]> I don't think these are related to checkers or assertions in ]>
procedural code, so I would be reluctant to have the new ]sub-committee
] ]> deal with these as well. I think it would be a diversion and a ]>
dilution of the work, which is going to be hard enough even without ]>
these additional issues.
]>
]> (It would be nice if this new sub-committee had a short name. It's ]>
awkward saying "the new techical sub-committee" alll the time...) ]> ]>
Thanks, ]> Shalom ]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
]> Intel Israel (74) Limited
]>
]> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential ]material
for ]> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
]distribution ]> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended ]> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
]>
]>
]> --
]> 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.
]
]
]

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