RE: [sv-ac] AC 196 - optional type spec?

Brad,
Yes, the seperate BNF is for semantics, explanation and convincing. If the proposal is excepted, the current BNF
should be sufficient.
Hillel

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:03 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] AC 196 - optional type spec?

If practical, it would be preferable to unify the BNF, instead of
cloning tf_port_list, and to use footnotes or LRM text to impose
special restrictions. Let's make the BNF smaller, not larger.

>As stated before to allow backward compatibility the proposal needs to have
>a BNF of its own, which steals the majority of the existing tf_port_list
BNF.

-- Brad
Received on Tue Nov 16 10:12:00 2004