RE: [sv-ac] 1855 proposal uploaded

Thanks Brad!  A few comments below.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:49 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1855 proposal uploaded

 

 

Any footnote on bind_directive would need to be added to A.1.4 as well,

not just to some Syntax box that extracts from A.1.4.

[Lisa Piper >>>] that was done already in 1722 which is not yet in
draft3a. Prior to the move, this showed up in 2 syntax boxes - now it is
in 3, so I was being caution to point out the new one.

 

In a BNF footnote, please spell any mentioned productions as in the BNF,

e.g., "bind_target_scope", not "bind target scope".

[Lisa Piper >>>] I fixed this in this proposal. I'll have to wait unit
the 1722 is incorporated into the draft to fix it. I was consistent on
this.

 

The text of the proposed footnote does not follow the LRM conventions of

Subclause 1.3 -- 

 

    http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ac/hm/3906.html

 

Compare with the existing footnotes in A.10.

 

-- Brad

 

________________________________

 

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Lisa

Piper

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:09 AM

To: sv-ac@eda.org

Subject: [sv-ac] 1855 proposal uploaded

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

I have uploaded the proposal for 1855 which fixes a few things that

resulted from moving the discussion on bind from SVA to chapter 22., the

most significant of which is the title change.  Please review (it is

short!)

 

<<1855_bind_1.pdf>> .

 

lisa

 

 

-- 

This message has been scanned for viruses and 

dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

 

believed to be clean. 

 

-- 

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

 

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.