RE: [sv-bc] sign/width casting semantics

It's time to cut the Gordian knot of signed'()/unsigned'()/N'().

Their history and the vague shadows it left behind in the LRM are a
distraction from our mission of crafting a clear and useful language
standard.

Let's start from a blank slate and find a simple semantics that is
obvious and natural to reason about. 

I still favor the semantics proposed in

    http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/7990.html

I'd be OK, too, with removing signed'()/unsigned'() and just fixing
N'().

-- Brad



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