RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

Matt,

I vote Yes on all except

>SVDB 1339 ___Yes   _XX__No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1339

  Reason -- The proposal would add "Any white-space characters preceding
or following the macro text are not considered part of the macro text."
This sentence is tautological, because what precedes or follows a thing
cannot be part of that thing.  Also, there should be a concrete example.

>SVDB 1571 ___Yes   __XX_No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1571
 
 Reasons -- 

   1) (Twice) In '"=" symbol', the '=' is not a symbol, but a token, and
it shouldn't be in quotations. 

   2)  In Syntax 21-2, the = should be bold red.

 If these were corrected, I would withdraw my 'No' and vote 'Yes'.

>SVDB 1619 ___Yes   _XX__No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1619

  Reason -- Some SystemVerilog users strongly prefer using non-ANSI
style port declarations, so I cannot accept the ANSI-only restriction.

>SVDB 2102 ___Yes   _XX__No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2102

  Reasons -- I find the proposed language confusing. As Shalom asked,
why can't I have multiple continuous assignments to the same element as
long as they are to different bits?  Also, it's not clear that it's
still illegal to mix procedural and continuous assignments to the same
bit. (Or is that to the same element? I can't tell.) 

>
>SVDB 2106 ___Yes   _XX__No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2106

  Reasons -- I'm fine with this, except that I don't understand the
first sentence. "A typedef may be used to give an existing data type a
user defined name, or to re-name another user-defined data type." Why
would the user-defined data type not be an existing type unless you had
a situation like

        typedef struct {int x;} T;

  in which case you would not be re-naming the type, but naming it for
the first time.


-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Maidment, Matthew R
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:12 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

I forgot to include:

SVDB 2217 ___Yes   ___No  
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2217

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
>Maidment, Matthew R
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:03 AM
>To: sv-bc@eda.org
>Subject: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
>
>
>-You have until 8am PST, Monday, December 3, 2007 to respond -An issue 
>passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible  voters 
>respond with a YES vote.
>-If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a 
>reason.
> The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference 
>call.
>-Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note
>       (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). 
>
>As of the November 12, 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are:
>
>Brad Pierce        
>Shalom Bresticker  
>Cliff Cummings      
>Mark Hartoog        
>Francoise Martinolle
>Karen Pieper       
>Dave Rich          
>Steven Sharp       
>Gordon Vreugdenhil
>Stu Sutherland
>Alex Gran
>Don Mills
>Heath Chambers
>Tom Alsop
>Doug Warmke
>Mike Burns
>
>SVDB  329 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=329
>	
>SVDB 1338 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1338
>
>SVDB 1339 ___Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1339
>
>SVDB 1548 ___Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1548
>
>SVDB 1571 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1571
>
>SVDB 1619 ___Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1619
>
>SVDB 1957 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1957
>
>SVDB 2102 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2102
>
>SVDB 2106 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2106
>
>SVDB 2152 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2152
>
>SVDB 2163 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2163
>
>SVDB 2169 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2169
>
>SVDB 2170 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2170
>
>SVDB 2178 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2178
>
>SVDB 2184 ___Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2184
>
>--
>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.