Re: [sv-ec]Email Vote: Response requested by Friday July 1 2011 11:59pm

(1) Mantis 2794 _x_Yes ___No

(2) Mantis 2112 ___Yes _x_No

Was discussed at length in the April 11, 2011 conference call.
Several concerns were raised in that meeting on the proposal for mantis 2112.
My understanding was that Dave would be making some updates to the proposal.

    1. The changes for classes should be limited to non-blocking assignments.
       The proposal would also allow continuous assignments.

    2. Non-blocking assignments and continuous assignments to dynamic arrays
       and queues are not well defined.
       Items could get added in some situations.
       Interactions with the usage of $ need to be defined.

    3. References within a class could change between the assignment evaluation
       and when the assignment actually occurs.
       Multiple levels of reference could be involved.

    4. Accurately defining an lvalue should address some of the corner cases.

(3) Mantis 2900 ___Yes _X_No

Was discussed at length in the April 11, 2011 conference call.
Some concerns were raised in that meeting on the proposal for mantis 2900.
My understanding was that Dave would be making some updates to the proposal.

The general consensus was that people agreed with the intent of the proposal
but that there were concerns raised about the wording of it.

There was a concern raised about the phrase "the first time it appears"
Should be any operation where it could be written, but the first
thing that happens isn't always the write.

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