RE: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

Hello Karen
 
from a user point of view a merged LRM containing the content of P1364 and P1800 meaningfully combined is a very important target that should be put in motion as soon as possible.
 
For users SV adoption:
 
   o  this emphasises that System Verilog subset and Verilog are the same
   o  eases the evolution of Verilog to System Verilog for users, their managers and design tools / flows
   o  avoids complex explanations as to how P1364 & P1800 relate to each other ...
 
For users LRM comprehension:
 
   o  allows a cohesive definition of how Verilog features influence System Verilog
         i.e. generate statements, configurations on SV constructs, e.t.c
   o  allows a clean definition of how System Verilog features build on Verilog
         i.e. data types on wires, bit vector compared to vector of bits concept, e.t.c
   o  allows a unique definition for features common to System Verilog and Verilog
         i.e. hierarchy, `define e.t.c
   o avoids the need to refer to two LRMs
   o avoids exceptions interpreting Verilog LRM when considered as component of System Verilog
   o avoids conflicts in System Verilog when considering historic Verilog
         i.e. compilation unit
 
Of course these benefits would also apply to the committee work, later LRM amendments, duplicated issues, avoiding conflicts between two LRMs and reduction of the danger of divergence e.t.c.
 
There is obviously effort involved, but apparently there is a hiatus in activity and people willing to make a start now before the effort becomes too much later.
 
 
Regards
 
   Jonathan Bradford
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Karen Pieper
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:41 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800



Hi, all, 

In the P1800 meeting last week, the Working Group asked for each of the SV-* committees to provide an opinion on whether or not to merge the P1364 and the P1800 LRMs into one LRM.  They are interested in your opinions on:

1)  How much time will it take us to merge the relevant parts of the LRM 
2)  When you recommend merging the LRM (now, toward the end of the current 2 year revision cycle, next LRM, never)... 
3)  Any other questions or comments that the committees recommend the study group consider in their decision to develop the next PAR.

Committee chairs, I would appreciate it if you would develop a response reflective of your committee's opinion and forward it to me after your next committee meeting, preferably no later than the 15th of February.

Thank you, 

Karen Pieper