RE: [sv-ac] 1466 updates

Thanks Brad for catching this. I should have caught that while making
the change. I now remember noticing that when I did it originally - way
back when. 

I have re-uploaded the PDF that was there previously. I did not
re-generate it.

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:43 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1466 updates

Lisa,

I think it would be better to leave things as they were and just reject
my friendly amendment entirely.  The friendly amendment, which suggested
to add + and * to cycle_delay_const_range_expression,
 
   cycle_delay_const_range_expression ::=
          constant_expression : constant_expression
        | constant_expression : $
        | +
        | *

was wrong because cycle_delay_const_range_expression is used in
const_or_range_expression.

I hope you will accept my apology for the mistake and the extra wasted
effort it has cost you.

-- Brad
 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Lisa
Piper
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:02 PM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] 1466 updates



<<1466_shortcuts_090407.pdf>> 

Hi John,

I have updated 1466 with the friendly amendment and posted it on Mantis.

Lisa

>>> 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.


-- 
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.