Re: [sv-ac] 1800 draft 3 review

Regarding the review items in

      http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-ac/hm/1630.html

I asked Stu about these review items and he said the question
about 17.6.1 and the suggested new example are substantive issues
that the SV-AC committee would need to address.

He also agreed that "multiply-clocked" reads poorly, and suggested
"multiple-clocked" as a possible alternative, but felt the SV-AC
committee would need to decide about any change in terminology.

-- Brad

 
Received on Fri Jan 28 09:15:42 2005