Date: Mon Aug 11 2014 - 03:37:52 PDT
Apparently, these are the only two places that mention C++. So, I suggest to remove it. (I'll not open a separate mantis issue on this, it can be done as part of the same mantis issue we have for Templates chapter revising). From: darren.galpin@infineon.com [mailto:darren.galpin@infineon.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 13:03 To: Yuri Tsoglin; ieee1647@eda.org Subject: RE: referring to another programming language in LRM - is it ok? Hi, Well, that went through the last balloting process and is in the 2011 standard, so also went past the IEEE editors - I assume it is OK. That same sentence also appears on pg 10 where Clause 8 is described. Note that this is the only time it does mention C++. I'm open to removal, given that we don't use a similar phrase anywhere else. Cheers, Darren From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org] On Behalf Of Yuri Tsoglin Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:57 AM To: ieee1647@eda.org Subject: referring to another programming language in LRM - is it ok? Hi all, In the Templates chapter, we have the following phrase: Template types in e define generic structs and units that are parameterized by type, similar to C++ templates. It is OK to refer to C++ here? If not, then I think we'll remove this part of the sentence. Thanks, Yuri. [cid:image002.jpg@01CFB569.73293E30] Yuri Tsoglin | e Language team, Specman RnD P: 972.3.9004305 M: 972.54.6468177 F: 972.3.9004001 www.cadence.com<http://www.cadence.com> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
