RE: [sv-bc] RE: SV-BC comments about Mantis 2173

Yaniv,
 
I am not volunteering, but some people were afraid of a potential
infinite recursion between them.
 
Regards,
Shalom


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Fais Yaniv
	Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:23 PM
	To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
	Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
	Subject: [sv-bc] RE: SV-BC comments about Mantis 2173
	
	
	 
	reminder - still looking for a volunteer...
	 
	 
	 
	or please clarify this comment over your next meeting:
	 
	BNF appears to have problems between property_statement and
property_expr
	 
	 
	Thanks,
	Yaniv
	 
	 

________________________________

	From: Maidment, Matthew R [mailto:matthew.r.maidment@intel.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 20:33
	To: sv-bc@eda.org
	Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; Fais Yaniv
	Subject: RE: SV-BC comments about Mantis 2173
	
	
	Would someone from SV-BC please volunteer to work with Yaniv?
	 
	Thanks,
	 
	Matt
	- 
	Matt Maidment 
	mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com 
	  
	 


________________________________

		From: Fais Yaniv [mailto:yaniv.fais@freescale.com] 
		Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:57 AM
		To: Maidment, Matthew R
		Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
		Subject: SV-BC comments about Mantis 2173
		
		
		Hi Matthew,
		 
		you have added these notes to Mantis 2173:
		1. BNF appears to have problems between
property_statement and property_expr

		2. 'if' is not in bold/courier font in Annex F changes.
Likely should be.

		3. Does expression sizing follow same rules as case
statement? Likely not

		   stated in use with rand sequence (17.17.3 in Draft). 

		SV-BC suggests that Yaniv work with someone from SV-BC
to refine the semantics. 

		 

		I would like to address those comments , please further
explain or refer me to someone from SV-BC to assist me in understanding
those issues:

		 issue #1 - BNF: not clear enough where exactly is the
problem

		 issue #2  - font in Annex F: easy to address 

		 issue #3  - expression sizing: SV-AC has decided to
align property case statement with procedural case statement regarding
comparison of case expressions with regard to expression sizing , though
we didn't understand why this is needed we prefer not to have different
semantics.

		I'm attaching a new proposal which address this issue by
referring to section 12.5 (case statement) when explaining the
expressions comparison (also in Annex F).

		 

		Regards,

		Yaniv

		 

		 

		 

		 

		 


	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.