Subject: [sv-ec] Neil Korpusik's vote
From: David W. Smith (David.Smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 11:13:18 PST
Neil's email bounced based on using a different email address.
Here is Neil's email:
> So, with this understanding, I would like to call the vote on the
following
> items (the versions updated from Monday's meeting have been posted to the
> web site).
>
>
>
> Errata:
>
>
>
> ERR-5: Modify the built-in namespace proposal to be
consistent
> with packages
>
> __Yes _X_No
Others have identified wording and naming problems.
>
>
>
> Extensions (Indicate if you are your company's representative):
I am the Sun rep.
>
> EXT_3: Virtual Interfaces
>
> _X_Yes __No
>
>
>
> EXT_7: Reacting to assertions
>
> __Yes _X_No
If I'm not mistaken, Arturo mentioned that he thinks the wording is
inaccurate
in a couple of places and should be changed (based on Jay's email).
>
>
> EXT_16: Event control for coverage
>
> __Yes _X_No
I would like to hear the outcome from the discussion for the example in
Jay's
email for the case where a blocking assignment is used. This example seems
to
indicate a problem with the proposal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 11:15:09 PST