Hi Eduard, In the latest proposal you added a change to Syntax Box 15-3. But you forgot to add the "default disable" line to the change. Also, there is a missing comma in the third paragraph that I overlooked before. "The scope includes the module, interface, or program . . ." ^ Tom Eduard Cerny wrote On 02/23/07 08:01,: > Hello all, > > I have incorporated Tom's recommendations in the new proposal. > See attached file or on Mantis. > > best regards, > ed > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On >>Behalf Of Thomas Thatcher >>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:57 PM >>To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org >>Subject: [sv-ac] Mantis 1648 Review >> >>Hello Everyone, >> >>I have reviewed the proposal for Mantis 1648. >> >>General comments: It's a little confusing to read because of the >>change bars between this proposal and the previous proposal. >> >>Here are a few specific problems. >> >>1. Misspelling of "disabling" in the first line. >> >>2. Shouldn't the module_or_generate_item_declaration syntax be >> inside a box? >> >>3. Perhaps case a) should be restated as >> a) If an assertion has a disable iff clause, then the >>disable specified >> in this clause will be used, and any default disable >>statement will be >> ignored. >> >>3. Add reset signal "rst" to the port list of module >> "examples_without_default" >> >>Other than these, the proposal looks good. >> >>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 Fri Feb 23 08:47:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 23 2007 - 08:48:09 PST