RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 2505

I believe Shalom may be addressing the apparent contradiction between the terms: "instance name" and "class handle".

Since a class handle is often though of as a (class) instance name.

        Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:17 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: neil.korpusik@oracle.com; Nilotpal Sensarkar; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Mantis 2505

On 9/28/2010 12:17 AM, Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> My comments:
>
> 1. In 8.5, the text says, "Using the earlier example". Please change it to "Using the earlier example (see 8.2)". The example is far earlier.
>
> 2. "var1 = p.ERR_OVERFLOW;", "The parameter data values of an object can also be accessed by qualifying the class value parameter or local value parameter name with an instance name."
>
> It would be good to explicitly clarify the visibility of enum value names. SV-BC has been discussing related issues and the answers are not always obvious. The example is informative and not normative.
>
3. "The parameter data values of an object can also be accessed by qualifying the class value parameter or local value parameter name with an instance name. Such an expression is not a constant expression. Accessing data types using a class handle is not allowed."
>
> This is ambiguous regarding type parameters.

I don't agree that it is ambiguous -- a type parameter is
just a name for a data type. This language is inclusive
of both type parameters and typedefs; the previous language
did not address typedefs. We could list both I suppose (oh,
and classes, covergroups, hmmm anything else?), but I think
the current wording is sufficient.

Gord.

>
> Thanks,
> Shalom
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>> Neil Korpusik
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:27 AM
>> To: Nilotpal Sensarkar
>> Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
>> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Mantis 2505
>>
>> I just had one comment on version v3 of the proposal.
>> var2 is declared to be an int, but p.buffer_size is
>> declared to be an integer. Wouldn't it be better to
>> have them both be of the same data type?
>>
>>
>> Neil Korpusik
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/27/10 13:00, Nilotpal Sensarkar wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>> The proposed changes were added.
>>> SV_LRM_Mantis2505v3.pdf is the latest file.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Neil S
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
-- 
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.