RE: [sv-bc] E-Mail Vote - Closes Midnight Oct 10

Brad,

Thanks very much for taking the time to put this brief
history together.

Interestingly, the 3 early links all discuss changing
the result of violating such constructs FROM warning TO error.
Adam K expressed the same sentiment I did about users ignoring
warnings.

But for some reason, LRM-245 goes the other direction and
changed the text to consistently produce a warning rather
than an error. There is no justification for this in any
of the 3 earlier mails you sent, including the vote on SVBC-59
that is recorded in
   http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/att-0665/01-03-17-03_minutes.htm

So my NO vote stands. I think the LRM should be changed in all
appropriate areas to require tools to issue an error for violations
of unique if and unique case.

Regards,
Doug
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-Mail Vote - Closes Midnight Oct 10
>
> Doug,
>
> Issue 226 is about bringing unique if in alignment with unique case,
> as it was amended in SV-BC59, which passed on 3/17/03.
>
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0360.html
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0556.html
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/att-0665/01-03-17-03_minutes.htm
>
> and later in LRM-245
>
> http://www.eda.org/sv/Changes_draft5/LRM_Changes_8.html
>
> -- Brad
>
>
> >> 226 ___Yes _X_No
> >
> >Users habitually ignore warning messages.
> >My preference is to leave these as hard errors, and then
> >allow tool vendors to provide switches which downgrade
> >these errors to warnings. That way the user has to
> >explicitly acknowledge that they are living life on the edge.
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 7 09:21:57 2004