[sv-ac] Re: friendly amendment to 1466?

John,

Yes, you're right -- 1466.  I introduced that mistake in bullet 10 of

   http://www.eda-stds.org/sv/sv-champions/hm/0213.html

-- Brad 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 9:55 AM
To: brad.pierce@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: friendly amendment to 1466?

Hi Brad:

In the feedback from the champions, there is the following friendly
amendment for 1768:

   10) The editor, when implementing 1768, add + and * to 
       cycle_delay_const_range_expression instead of adding ##[+] 
       and ##[*] to cycle_delay_range.

I think this should be for 1466, right?

J.H.

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