Hi Folks: Please find attached the D4 review feedback to be sent to Stu. Please review my rendering of the comments as LRM changes and send any feedback. I would like to have a voice vote on this in our next meeting so that we can approve it and send it on. Ed: I decided not to include your comments about the Courier-Bold font on keywords used in the text passages. Your response to me was that the editor could decide on these. I think Stu has already explained what is going on: > Regarding use of special fonts for keywords, the LRM is full of > inconsistencies, but I have been trying to make it more consistent as I add > in new changes. I am not placing terms such as "if-else" and "always > procedure" in the Courier-Bold keyword font because they refer to a general > construct that has been defined elsewhere in the LRM. For example "always > procedures" without the keyword font is defined to include "always", > "always_comb", "always_latch", and "always_ff" (see 9.2 for draft 4), > whereas "always" in Courier-Bold refers to just the "always" keyword > (perhaps when referring to a specific line in a code example). The term > "if-else" is defined as a conditional statement, which might be just "if" or > as an "if...else" pair (see 12.4 of draft 4). > > My suggestion is to try to follow the general LRM style for font > specializations in final proposals, but to not be overly concerned about > getting it perfect. Font usage in a proposal is a guide for the editor, but > it should be the editor's responsibility to try to take care formatting > details and overall consistency. Reviews after the changes are made, such > as this e-mail thread, are then used to determine if the editor > inadvertently changed the meaning of text when applying font > specializations. The system of checks-and-balances we have works well. The question still lingers about proving to ourselves that "!(bit'(b!=0))" really gives the correct representation of the "else" guard for procedural "if...else" when b is multi-bit 4-state. J.H. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 01 2007 - 05:53:49 PDT