[sv-bc] RE: P1800 Mantis 505 correction

Steven,

Now that you have indicated the exact paragraph in question, I understand
better what needs to change.

Regarding editor latitude to renumber the sub clauses, it is limited to only
what has been approved by committee.  In this case, the approved change on
reorganizing the major clauses of the LRM gives the editor a little bit of
latitude, because the approved change says to merge old clause 22 on
parameters into subclause 6.3, on constants.  That merge, in and of itself,
requires that the editor change the subclause levels.  We can--and
should--pick new levels that make the LRM structure be logical and
intuitive.  I'm very glad you have critically reviewed the merged text, and
pointed out where the objective for clarity was not meant.

I have attached a PDF file of a clause 6.3 that has two changes for the
Draft5/Prelim4:
- Subclause numbering is changed to flow better.
- The paragraph you flagged is split into the sub clauses you suggested.

Please let me know if this resolves your concerns.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 12:37 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-champions@eda.org
> Subject: Re: P1800 Mantis 505 correction
> 
> 
> >From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
> 
> >Would it solve the problem if I just elevate the 6.3.1.x to 
> be 6.3.x?  The
> >resulting subclause numbering would be:
> >
> >6.3.1 Parameter declaration syntax
> >6.3.2 Value parameters
> >6.3.2.1 $ as a parameter value
> >6.3.3 Type parameters
> >6.3.4 Parameter port lists
> >6.3.5 Const constants
> 
> No, this would not help.  The problem is that there is a 
> paragraph that
> contains specifications for value parameters and for type parameters.
> It doesn't belong in either section.  Currently it is in the 
> section on
> type parameters.  This is definitely a bad place, since most of the
> paragraph is about value parameters.  And since it is talking 
> about the
> type of a value parameter, this will get confused with the type that
> is the value of a type parameter.
> 
> The paragraph needs to be broken into two separate parts, so that each
> part can be put into the relevant subclause.
> 
> The paragraph in question reads:
> 
> "In an assignment to, or override of, a parameter without an 
> explicit type 
> declaration, the type of the right-hand expression shall be 
> unsized, real or 
> integral. If the expression is real, the parameter is real. 
> If the expression is 
> integral, the parameter is a logic vector of the same size with range 
> [size-1:0]. In an assignment to, or override of, a parameter 
> with an explicit 
> type declaration, the type of the right-hand expression shall 
> be assignment 
> compatible with the declared type. In an assignment to, or 
> override of, a type 
> parameter, the right-hand expression shall represent a data type."
> 
> The first part, which belongs in subclause 6.3.1.1, is:
> 
> "In an assignment to, or override of, a parameter without an 
> explicit type 
> declaration, the type of the right-hand expression shall be 
> unsized, real or 
> integral. If the expression is real, the parameter is real. 
> If the expression is 
> integral, the parameter is a logic vector of the same size with range 
> [size-1:0]. In an assignment to, or override of, a parameter 
> with an explicit 
> type declaration, the type of the right-hand expression shall 
> be assignment 
> compatible with the declared type."
> 
> The second part, which belongs in subclause 6.3.1.3, is just the last
> sentence:
> 
> "In an assignment to, or override of, a type parameter, the 
> right-hand 
> expression shall represent a data type."
> 
> It might be reasonable to merge this single-sentence 
> paragraph with the
> single-sentence paragraph following it.  They are somewhat related.
> 
> So at a minimum, the first part of this paragraph needs to be moved to
> somewhere in subclause 6.3.1.1.  I don't know whether it should become
> paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 in that subclause.
> 
> Some wordsmithing would make the paragraphs flow better after 
> separation.
> However, moving the first part into the right subclause is the most
> important part.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
>