Below are my votes:
(1) Mantis 3046 ___Yes _X_No
The term "strictly downwards manner" is not well defined. Also, the language is a bit awkward in treating dotted names specially when all it should say is that normal rules apply, which already deal with the first name of a dotted name. I do agree with the outcome of the examples shown in the Mantis.
(2) Mantis 2506 _X_Yes ___No
(3) Mantis 3531 _X_Yes ___No
(4) Mantis 3394 _X_Yes ___No
(5) Mantis 2905 _X_Yes ___No
(6) Mantis 3254 _X_Yes ___No
The sentence seems somewhat tautological: constraint_set is .. constraint set. Perhaps we can find better verbiage - the intent is to define a constraint_set as either a single constrain or a group of constrains bracketed by curly braces. I'm voting yes because the same language exists in implication so this is no worse.
(7) Mantis 3298 ___Yes _X_No
Must mention constrains: A friendly amendment (which may need discussion):
The this keyword shall only be used within nonstatic class methods, constrains, inlined constrain methods, or embedded covergroups (see 19.4) ;
(8) Mantis 3054 ___Yes _X_No
Although allowing $countones and $onehot in constrains is reasonable. There is no explicit proposal that describes the semantics associated with such constrains. For example, do these function calls partition the constrains (as with other "allowed" functions) or are they to be treated differently? If the semantics are the same as for other function calls, the LRM can simply state that constrains will allow functions *and system function* that adhere to the existing limitations.
(9) Mantis 2935 _X_Yes ___No
Arturo
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri May 6 13:02:08 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 06 2011 - 13:02:11 PDT