Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Wrong spelling of goto operator in BNF (App A.)
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 10:40:46 PDT
Thx Adam. Actually my initial skim revealed a few things in addition to
the "*>" that "came back" in this rev.... (for example, unless I am
mistaken, also the immediate assert ";" termination discussion was set
back ... Was the naming of "*..." operators set back to ?).
** I suspect it might be the case, that we forgot to update the BNF in
Appendix, and Stu took that back into the chapter.
Faisal/Steve/Surrendra please take a look at this if I am right,
otherwise please set me straight (I was a bit turned off by these, and
so became passive about reviewing agian) so we can update that in
draft6.
Thx.
-Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&D Novas Software, Inc.http://www.novas.com (408) 467-7893
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Adam Krolnik > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:57 AM > To: sv-ac@server.eda.org > Subject: [sv-ac] Wrong spelling of goto operator in BNF (App A.) > > > > > Good morning all. > > Would someone concur of the wrong spelling of the goto > operator as noted on pages 174 (Syntax box 17-5). This > matches our agreements and the text on page 174. > > Faisal, I recommend this change, provided there is agreement, > to David Smith. > > > > Section A.2.10, pg 301. > > WAS: > > goto_repetition ::= [*> const_or_range_expression ] > > MUST BE: > > goto_repetition ::= [*-> const_or_range_expression ] > > Section 17.7.2 pg 174. > > WAS: > > goto_repetition ::= [*> const_or_range_expression ] > > MUST BE: > > goto_repetition ::= [*-> const_or_range_expression ] > > > Adam Krolnik > Verification Mgr. > LSI Logic Corp. > Plano TX. 75074 > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 10:41:45 PDT