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

1) Mantis 2794 _X_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2794
[Title: Clarify queue methods return status]
[proposal: proposal-2794-3a.pdf]

(2) Mantis 2112 ___Yes _X_No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2112
[Title: Remove restrictions on NBA assignments to class members]
[proposal: 2112_NBA.pdf]

The proposal would allow continuous and procedural continuous assignments to class objects, which would be problematic.

(3) Mantis 2900 ___Yes _X_No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2900
Title: Associative array should consider the context of an lvalue to create an entry]
[proposal: 2900_assoc_lvalue2.pdf]

I am fine with the intent of this proposal, but I think the wording is unclear.

In particular, in the phrase "the first time it appears as the target", the term "appear" does not seem like a good choice. The idea is that this occurs the first time the context where it appears is executed. But "appears" doesn't indicate execution. In a sense, the entry "appears as the target of an assignment" as soon as the user writes the code.

The term "appears" is reasonable when talking about syntax being seen. If the user or a parser is reading the source code sequentially from the start, the entry "first appears" at the point where it is first seen in such a scan. But execution isn't a sequential scan and it executes code rather than "seeing" it.

I understand that part of this is deliberate. The point is that the element is allocated when the construct is reached during execution, even if the part where it is used as an lvalue isn't executed until slightly later. So describing it in terms of execution isn't right either. It is based on "appearing", but appearing in something that has started executing.

My apologies for not noting this earlier, but it became more obvious to me when I actually read the text of the proposal.

Also, "context of an assignment" doesn't seem to include use as a ref argument. The description as an lvalue in the Mantis item was more correct, though the term may not be defined in the LRM.

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