RE: [sv-bc] Ballot for proposed changes for 1800-2008 Draft 3

I don't think that 

"or use an implicit syntax that indicates only the ranges of the packed
dimensions and, optionally, the signedness"

makes clear that this can be empty. Your addition is OK.

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
> On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:33 PM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Ballot for proposed changes for 1800-2008 Draft 3
> 
> >I vote NO on BP1-13-3 because the proposal does not cover the case
> >that a return type is omitted completely, in which case it defaults
> to
> a logic scalar.
> 
> I thought it did cover that case, because when the return type has no
> packed dimensions and has the default signedness, then the implicit
> syntax is the empty string, and the type of the empty string
> immediately
> preceded by a 'logic' keyword is a logic scalar.
> 
> But I wouldn't be opposed to explicitly mentioning all this, such as,
> "In particular, the implicit syntax can be empty, in which case the
> return type is a logic scalar."
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:34 AM
> To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Ballot for proposed changes for 1800-2008 Draft 3
> 
> 1. > BP1-7-4   yes ___ no _x_ abstain ___
>    > MH-1      yes _x_ no ___ abstain ___
> 
> I vote NO on BP1-7-4, preferring MH-1 instead. These 2 are different
> proposals regarding the same paragraph, and are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 2. > BP1-12-1  yes _x_ no ___ abstain ___
> 
> I vote YES in BP1-12-1, with the friendly amendment that it is on
> 12.3,
> not 12.2.
> 
> 
> 3. > BP1-13-1  yes _x_ no ___ abstain ___
> 
> The proposal is, 'In 13.1, remove the sentence "A function shall have
> at
> least one input type argument"
> and remove the editorial question in the margin.'
> 
> I vote YES, with the friendly amendment to make the same changes in
> 13.3.
> 
> 
> 4. > BP1-13-3  yes ___ no _x_ abstain ___
> 
> I vote NO on BP1-13-3 because the proposal does not cover the case
> that
> a return type is omitted completely, in which case it defaults to a
> logic scalar. I would vote YES if the proposal were amended to cover
> that case.
> 
> 
> 5. Regarding SB-O-*, I did not intend for these to be part of the
> vote,
> either because there is no specific proposal or because it is a lot of
> work and/or complex.
> 
> 
> 6. Regarding SB-O-7 (data types vs. net and variable types), for the
> following draft, I propose to separate Clause 6 (Data Types) into two
> clauses, one of which will be Data Types, and the other will be Data
> Objects.
> 
> 
> 7. I vote YES on all other issues.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> --
> 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.