From: Anders Nordstrom (andersn@nortelnetworks.com)
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 07:01:47 PDT
BTF Members,
Don't forget the next BTF call on Friday October 20 at 12:00 pm
where we will discuss these and other ballot comments.
Thanks,
Anders
<p><p>JohnW-Comment #34: p. 60, Section 4.2.3.3, Null string handling, the
examples all are in
"smart quotes", which are illegal in ASCII.
FIXTYPO: Change the "smart quotes" to regular quotes (") in section 4.2.3.3
<p>JohnW-Comment #35: p. 62, Section 4.3, Minimum, typical, and maximum delay
expressions, the Example 2 text at the top of the page should say, ". . .
shows a
typical expression . . .".
FIXTYPO: Change the text at the top of the page in Example 2 to:
"The next example shows a typical expression that is
used...."
<p>JohnW-Comment #36: p. 64, Section 4.4.3, Example of self-determined
expressions should
end with the example, c=21 // example size is 16 bits (size of c).
FIXTYPO: Change the last line in the example to:
c=21 // example size is 16 bits (size of c)
<p>JohnW-Comment #37: p. 68, Section 5.3, The stratified event queue, around
the middle of
the page, should include a Note explaining blocking briefly & referring to its
explanation (5.6.3 & 9.22).
SENSIBLE: Blocking and non-blocking is explained on page 70. For further
clarification, in section 5.6.3 add a reference to 9.2.1 and
in section 5.6.4
add a reference to 9.2.2
<p>JohnW-Comment #38: p. 77, Section 6.2.1, Variable declaration assignment,
says in the
first paragraph that "Variable declaration assignments to an array are not
allowed".
Why not? This exception seems merely to make things harder for the designer
and
should be deleted from the standard.
NO CHANGE: Assignment to an array is not allowed in procedural assignments
either and it is quite a large change to add syntax for
both cases.
<p>JohnW-Comment #39: p. 82, Section 7.1.5, The range specification, says in
the third
paragraph that one instance identifier shall be associated with only one
range, and
the example, nand #2 t_nand[0:3] (. . .), t_nand[4:7] (. . .); is
shown illegal. Why? So long as there is no implied name conflict (t_nand[j]
declared more than once), array-name holes should be allowed.
NO CHANGE: The example is equivalent to declaring t_nand[0:7]. Each module or
gate identifier must have a unique name and by using
the range above
two identifiers with the same name are declared.
Still require
the range to be continous.
<p>JohnW-Comment #40: p. 86, Section 7.3, buf and not gates, The paragraph
second from
the bottom of the page is not only pedantically repetitive, but it is
confusing because
it is repetitive. A designer would have to spend time comparing this and
the very
similar statement in Section 7.2, to be sure there was no difference in the
details.
This paragraph should be shortened to read in its entirety, "The delay
specification
shall be zero, one, or two delays, with meanings identical to those of 7.2."
NO CHANGE: The text in the two sections is identical but it makes
each section easier to read by itself.
Attachment Converted: "C:\Documents and Settings\stefen\Application Data\Qualcomm\Eudora\andersn40.vcf"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:14 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.