RE: [sv-bc] Email ballot: Respond by Friday, Februrary 29, 8am PST

I don't think of it as being weakened; it is a clarification.
Elaboration is not a procedural context, and quitting "immediately"
implies an ordering that is not prescribed.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:41 AM
> To: Alsop, Thomas R; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Email ballot: Respond by Friday, Februrary 29,
8am
> PST
> 
> Tom,
> 
> The language of $fatal was weakened to answer Gord's concerns in
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/8040.html. Presumably a good tool would
> terminate elaboration as soon as possible.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> 
> > >SVDB 1769 ___Yes   _X_No
> > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1769
> > >
> > [Alsop, Thomas R] I don't understand the difference between a
> > $fatal and an $error system task in the context of
> > elaboration violations.  I see that $fatal is supposed to
> > quit elaboration and error doesn't but it's only a "may be
> > aborted" not a "shall be aborted".  The "may" is my main
> > objection because it implies that some implementations can
> > really make $fatal and $error the same.  In my mind $fatal
> > should absolutely kill elaboration.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> 
> --
> 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.