I like the way Darren has positioned it to distinguish e vs. HDLs. So from a pure eWG perspective I don't see an issue in closing. However let's also recognise that we are hearing more and more "X-pessism verification" stories emerging from both vendors and customers in the recent times. There are formal based solutions/apps and also every simulation tool seems to add these capabilities in the recent past. Being an advanced functional verification language (and methodology to a large extent), are we overlooking something here? Or do we need a closer study of these proposed solutions, or more importantly the problem in deep to see if e would need to address this in near future. Regards Srini On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:22 PM, stefan birman <stefan@amiq.com> wrote: > I vote to close this issue. > > Stefan > > > On 26/06/201426 15:14, Damian Savage wrote: > >> me too >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org] On Behalf >> Of Andrew Piziali >> Sent: jeudi 26 juin 2014 14:04 >> To: Darren Galpin >> Cc: ieee1647@eda.org >> Subject: Re: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/ >> mantis/view.php?id=3386 >> >> Darren, Yuri asked: >> >> ... Do you accept closing this issue as rejected on the basis that it >>> applies to HDL languages only? >>> >> Yes, I vote to close this issue. >> >> >> > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jun 26 10:42:51 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 26 2014 - 10:42:53 PDT