[sv-ec] Updated 2506 based on Champion's feedback

I have uploaded a new version of 2506 (v7) that addresses the Champion's feedback. Below is my response to the feedback.

Thanks,
Scott

Shalom

In the syntax for cover_point, "[data_type_or_implicit]" should have no square
brackets around it, like everywhere else in the LRM, as the "implicit" part of
it can be entirely empty.

[SL] Fixed.
 
"Identifiers within the coverpoint are restricted to constant expressions
(see 11.2.1), instance constants (...), or non-ref arguments to the covergroup."
I don't understand this. What does "within the coverpoint" mean?
For example, the example contains "coverpoint x;". I would say that "x" is
"within" the coverpoint, but it is a ref argument.

[SL] My interpretation of "within the coverpoint" is within the scope of the coverpoint. How about adding "the coverpoint name" to the front of the list?

Brad
 
1) I thought we weren't supposed to use "foo" and "bar" in examples.

[SL] Fixed. Changed foo -> low and bar -> high

2) I don't understand the following:

   "In the presence of a coverpoint type, e and b shall each be evaluated as
    though it were the right-hand side of an assignment to a variable whose
    type is the coverpoint type."

   They're each cast to the coverpoint type, as in 6.24.1? I'm guessing not,
   else it would have just said so, and that the intent is that they are
   evaluated as if they were operands in a right-hand side expression being
   assigned to the coverpoint type, analogous to "v = e*b". So then what is
   the "each" for? Why not just "e and b shall be evaluated"?

[SL] Removed each as suggested.

3) Is there more than one way in the standard to understand "evaluates to true"?
   Why do we need to say "The truth value of the with clause expression is
   interpreted in the same way an expression is interpreted in the condition of
   a procedural if statement(Sec. 12.4).?

[SL] That statement was intended to be a clarification. Questions have been raised about it before. I have removed that sentence.

4) Instead of

      "This bin definition selects all values from 0 to 255 that are zero
       modulo 3 (i.e., that are divisible by 3)."
 
   maybe just
 
      "This bin definition selects all values from 0 to 255 that are evenly
       divisible by 3."

[SL] Fixed.

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