[sv-cc] Re: [sv-sc] Results of Champions email vote ending Aug 13th

That rephrasing would be better than the existing text, but why does
there need to be this special restriction on checker instantiations?

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-sc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-sc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Thatcher
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; sv-sc@eda.org; SV-CC
Subject: Re: [sv-sc] Results of Champions email vote ending Aug 13th

Hello Everyone,

I'm reviewing the comments from the Champions

1.  From Brad:
    The following formulation is strange

    "A checker may be instantiated wherever a concurrent assertion may
    appear (see 16.15).
    It shall be illegal to instantiate checkers in fork...join,
    fork...join_any, or fork...join_none
    blocks."

It appears that 2398 "Concurrent procedural assertions" now permits 
concurrent assertions in fork-join blocks  That proposal also eliminated

restriction on placing them in class methods.

How about rephrasing this way.

   "A checker may be instantiated wherever a concurrent assertion may 
appear (see 16.15) with the following exceptions:"

Tom

Neil Korpusik wrote:
> The details are attached.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 

-- 
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.