RE: Complete LRM posted

["Mark Strickland \(mastrick\)" <mastrick@cisco.com>]

Yaron,

I have not heard from Vit, but even if generators to come may handle
this differently, the LRM should also allow the current implementation;
otherwise new tools will not handle legacy code well.

Mark 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Kashai [mailto:yaron@cadence.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:18 PM
To: Mark Strickland (mastrick); 1647-l@ieee1647.org
Cc: Vitaly Lagoon
Subject: RE: Complete LRM posted


Hi Mark,

There is no such list, and in fact I hope there are no such differences.
At best, the standard may remain silent about some aspects that are
implemented currently, leaving the freedom for future implementation to
either follow or diverge from the current implementation. I would prefer
not to rule out behavior that's currently implemented. 

I propose that you pick up the specific issue with Vit Lagoon, who is
the author of that particular part. I suspect Vit has good reasons for
casting that restriction - some prior knowledge of the generators to
come... 

Vit is copied on this e-mail.

Cheers,
-- yaron
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mastrick@cisco.com
>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:13 PM
>To: Yaron Kashai; 1647-l@ieee1647.org
>Subject: RE: Complete LRM posted
>
>Yaron,
>
>Is there any list that highlights the elements of this LRM that would 
>"break" existing e code that is written for Specman?  As an example,
>7.2.7.4.5 says that "keep list1 in list2" cannot put list2 elements in 
>a different order within list1.  While existing code would still parse,

>a generator that follows this LRM would not fill the coverage space as 
>thoroughly as the Specman generator currently does (which does allow 
>list element reordering).
>
>Mark
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-1647-l@verificationvault.com
>[mailto:owner-1647-l@verificationvault.com] On Behalf Of Yaron Kashai
>Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:35 PM
>To: 1647-l@ieee1647.org
>Subject: Complete LRM posted
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>As requested in today's meeting, the complete LRM is now posted as one 
>PDF file, to ease the review of the complete flow of the document. 
>(This version still lacks the preliminary clauses, such as overview).
>
>A direct link to the file:
>http://www.ieee1647.org/downloads/D0.3-PDF-files/ieee_P1647_d3.pdf
>
>The file is accessible from the Revision 0.3 download page at 
>http://www.ieee1647.org/download_03.html along with the per-clause PDF 
>files.
>
>Please take the time to review the latest version, we only have a few 
>weeks to complete the work.
>
>Cheers,
>-- yaron
>
>