[sv-bc] Stu's QUESTIONS and NOTES in Draft 3a

I added some of the editor's notes as well as questions. I will put them
into a single new Mantis.

Shalom


3.12, Table 3-1: Should "step" be added to this table? (per A.8.4) 

3.12.1: The term "time scaling" is not defined in 1364-2005 or
1800-2005. Does it need to be? 

6.24.3: The description of this example would make more sense if the
definition of source_t and dest_t were added.

8.2: "A common convention is to capitalize the first letter of the class
name so that it is easy to recognize class declarations." Should this
LRM follow this convention? 

10.6.1: Does the result of a cont. assign to a variable update
immediately when the variable is released? 

10.6.1: What about unpacked stucts, enums, classes, etc.? 

10.6.2: What about unpacked stucts, enums, classes, etc. 

11.2.1: Are all operators listed in table 11-1 after merging in SV still
legal in constant expressions? 

11.5.2: This text comes directly from 1364-2005. There was no matching
subclause from 1800-2005 to merge in. Is new text needed for SV array
addressing ?

11.6.1, Table 11-23: SV operators need to be added to this table.

13.4.4: Also interface and program?

14.3: "step" is not defined at this cross reference. Is it missing from
there, or is the cross reference wrong?

19.5: should $signed/$unsigned be moved to Annex D since SV has sign
casting?

20.3.1: Is string type legal?

20.3.7: Is string type legal?

21.4: What is this "unchanged behavior"? I could not find it in 1364.

22.3.1: Is this last sentence still true in SV (i.e. can it be one
interface or one program)?

22.3.3.3: Is 'z correct for all net type (e.g. tri1)?

26.3, Syntax 26-1: The 1364-2005 BNF was organized differently than
1800's. The BC committee needs to verify that I copied the right
productions.

28.3.2: Can "logic" also be used?

30.6: Can the notifier be any variable type (per the BNF) or are only
1-bit types allowed?

31.9: Is string type legal?

32.7: Are there any changes to this subclause to support SV design
blocks?

34.10: This subclause seems to be mostly, if not entirely, redundant
with the rest of this Clause. Can this subclause be deleted? If not, can
the redundant text be replaced with cross references?

34.10: Should this be "DPI-C"? (twice)

40.7: Should this subclause be merged into Clause 36?

40.12: Should this subclause be merged into Clause 37?

D.2: does "vector" need to be changed to allow for a single bit of a
multidimensional packed array?

D.12: does "vector" need to be changed to allow for other SV types?

D.13: can the SV string type also be used?

I.9.1.3: should this be changed to "P1800-2008"?

I.12: Should this deprecated subclause be moved to, or referenced in,
Annex C?

Shalom Bresticker
Intel Jerusalem LAD DA
+972 2 589-6852
+972 54 721-1033


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.