On 5/6/2011 1:01 PM, Arturo Salz wrote:
>
> 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.
>
But normal rules do not apply. If the first name is not present in the
target class, one does not want to do a hierarchical search upwards
from the location of the class type definition. One wants to terminate
the search immediately and start the search in the context surrounding
the inline constraint, not the context of the class object type. That
is why a clarification is needed.
Feel free to suggest better wording. But I don't think that "normal
search"
is going to be correct.
Gord.
> (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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.Received on Fri May 6 13:06:30 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 06 2011 - 13:06:32 PDT