Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote Closes 12am PST July 31st 2007 - 1857

1857  ___ Yes   _X_ No

I like where we are headed with the mantis item, but I do have some issues
with the current proposal.

Issues:

- Section 8.23

  Are we allowed to have out-of-block declarations for a subset of the
  methods within a class and non-out-of-block declarations for the rest of
  the class methods?

- Section 8.23

  "An out-of-block declaration must be declared in the same scope as the class
   declaration and shall follow the class declaration." The part about the
   class declaration following the class declaration should be made more
   precise. The word follow could be understood to be referring to the syntax
   of the prototype, which is not what I think was intended.  Maybe something
   like the following would be better.

   An out-of-block declaration shall be declared in the same scope as the class
   declaration and shall not be specified until after the class declaration.

- Section 8.23.2

  I don't really know what is meant by "An extern class block shall contain
  only nested extern class declarations and full methods...". The part about
  nested extern class declarations alludes me. What is the purpose of this?

- Section 8.23.2

  "This form allows method return types to directly reference class type
  names". It appears that the only case that requires special treatment is
  the paramaterized class. I suspect that removing this sentence from 8.23.2
  will lead to less confusion.

- Section 8.23.2

  Are we allowed to have more than one extern class block for the same class?

- Section 8.23.2

  Can we have both an extern class block and an individual out-of-block
  declaration for the same class?


Friendly ammendment:

- There should be a strike-out (in red) through the text being removed.
  This might just be an html problem, but when I look at this proposal I
  do not see anything in red. I see some black text and some blue text.
  I don't see any strike-outs nor any red text.



Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote On 07/23/07 23:32,:
>  
> Based on July 23rd, 2007 sv-ec meeting, we are conducting 
> an email vote on the following mantis items. 
> 1857 and 1897.  
> 
> Please note that the operating guidelines are:
> - Only one (1) week to respond (Midnight July 31st 2007)
> - An issue passes if there are zero ** NO ** votes and at least
>   half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote.
> - Any NO vote must be accompanied by a reason.
>   This issue will then be up for discussion at the
>   next conference call.
> 
> As of the July 23 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are (total 15):
> 
> Arturo Salz,
> Cliff Cummings         
> Dave Rich   
> David Scott
> Francoise Martinolle        
> Geoffrey Coram
> Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Heath Chambers
> Jonathan Bromley
> Mark Hartoog
> Michael Mintz
> Neil Korpusik      
> Ray Ryan        
> Steven Sharp
> Stu Sutherland
> 
> Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason. 
> Send it to the reflector.
> 
> 1587  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1897  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 
> 1857 external method definitions and parameterized class types 
> http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001857 
> 1897  clarify "union of all significant bins" and "overlapping bins" in
> coverage computation 
> http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001897
> 
>   
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-276-6385
Frontend Technologies (FTAP)                      Fax: 408-276-5092
Sun Microsystems                       email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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