RE: [sv-ac] SV-AC Mantis item 928

Agreed, makes sense. 

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On
Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:27 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] SV-AC Mantis item 928

Hi all,

I think that we should divide the issues that have been discussed around
item 928 into two parts. One to fix the existing problem with minimal
changes and two to provide extensions like additional types etc.

Therefore, I'd propose that during the meeting on 7/11 we accept / vote
on the proposal that Lisa put on Mantis, dated 6/25. The only potential
problem is that it imposes order on the untyped ports which now would
have to go before the typed ones. But I do not believe that this is a
major problem with users, not yet.

Then, whoever wishes to do so, create a new erratum that covers the
extensions for sequence, property, event, etc. types. As far as I can
see, these would not be in contradiction with Lisa's current proposal.

What do you say?

Best regards,
ed