Is there an error in the LRM regarding OR of sequences?

In reply to ce_2015:
You are correct, one case is missing, the te3 ##2 te4 ##2 te5 that starts at cycle 2. Figure 16-10—ORing (or) two sequences shows the case when two matches for the composite sequence are recognized. This would have significance when that ORing sequence is used in an antecedent since all ORing possibilities (and consequents)must be evaluated for a property to be true. Maybe the committee felt it was too confusing to show both cases. Don’t expect any changes, as the text is clear on the intent.
BTW, I am a member of the AC committee.
Ben Cohen
http://www.systemverilog.us/ ben@systemverilog.us
For training, consulting, services: contact Home - My cvcblr