Hi John, Yes, the points brought up in the bugnote for 0928 cover all the points in my e-mail. Thanks, Tom John Havlicek wrote On 02/21/07 10:45,: > Hi Tom: > > I think that 1735 has been written assuming that the feedback from our > proofreading of 0928 is implemented by the editor. > > You should have a look at the bugnote to 0928 that describes the > editorial changes requested. 0928 is now under SV-LRM, not SV-AC. > > I am not saying that all of your points will be addressed, but I think > some of them will. > > J.H. > > > >>X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda-stds.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:33:26 -0800 >>From: Thomas Thatcher <Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM> >>Reply-To: Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM >>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>X-eda.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean >>X-Spam-Status: No, No >>Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org >>X-eda.org-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information >>X-eda.org-MailScanner-From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2007 18:34:11.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1A36790:01C755E6] >> >>Hello Everyone, >> >>I have been reviewing Mantis 1735, "Incomplete fixes from 0928." >> >>Here is what I have found:. >> >>1. From Mantis 0928: Should the syntax production "sequence_actual_arg" >> be included in Syntax Box 17-2? >> >>2. The Mantis 1735 proposal calls for a correction of the syntax >> production "property_port_item" in Syntax Box 17-14, but >> "property_port_item" does not appear in this syntax box. >> Note that syntax production "property_port_list" also does not >> appear in the syntax box. >> >>3. It looks like the editor missed the Mantis 928 change to >> "property_declaration" in Syntax 17-14. It still uses "tf_port_list", >> instead of "property_port_list" (The production is correct in >> A.2.10). >> >>4. The Mantis 1735 proposal call for changing the production >> "sequence_port_item" in Syntax 17-4, but this production does not >> appear in this box. >> >>5. The definition of "sequence_declaration" in Syntax 17-4 was not updated >> according to the Mantis 928 proposal. >> It still uses "tf_port_list". This box should also include the >> productions "sequence_port_list", "sequence_port_item", and >> "sequence_formal_type". >> >>6. Note that the production "sequence_declaration" does not appear in >> Syntax 17-2. Never has, apparently. >> >>Tom >>-- >>------------------ >>Thomas J. Thatcher >>Sun Microsystems >>408-616-5589 >>------------------ >> >>-- >>This message has been scanned for viruses and >>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>believed to be clean. >> -- ------------------ Thomas J. Thatcher Sun Microsystems 408-616-5589 ------------------ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Feb 21 10:58:27 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 10:58:31 PST