RE: [sv-ac] Mantis 2005

Hi Neil,

This is my bad that I did not check the previous note where I informed
Stu that I was appending a PDF file sent me by Doron. I am sorry by
asking the Editor to revert the change, but the implementation in Draft7
was correct. The only thing that I am asking here is to keep the version
from Draft7.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:01 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: Eduard Cerny; Bustan, Doron; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org;
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Mantis 2005

Hi Dmitry,

What is in the LRM is consistent with what is in the proposal.

To make a change to this portion of the text is the equivalent of
changing
the proposal. Based on your latest bug note you are now also suggesting
that
A.6.10 be changed.

This appears to be going beyond purely Editorial. The fact that you have
now given contradictory instructions to the Editor, it definitely
appears to
me that this is beyond being Editorial.

Neil


On 10/27/08 04:42, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> 
>  
> 
> Since Draft7 was implemented correctly, I think we can consider it as
an 
> editorial issue.
> 
>  
> 
> Dmitry
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2008 1:40 PM
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry; Bustan, Doron; Seligman, Erik
> *Cc:* sv-ac@eda.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-ac] Mantis 2005
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
>  
> 
> There is a Mantis for that: 0002484
> 
>  
> 
> ed
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of

> *Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2008 4:21 AM
> *To:* Bustan, Doron; Seligman, Erik
> *Cc:* sv-ac@eda.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Mantis 2005
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Doron, Erik,
> 
>  
> 
> During Draft7 review we added an editor note 7144 requesting the 
> following change:
> 
>  
> 
> The draft says
> 
>  
> 
> deferred_immediate_cover_statement ::=
> 
> *cover #0 ( *expression *) *statement_or_null
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal says
> 
>  
> 
> deferred_immediate_cover_statement ::==
> 
> *cover #0 (** *expression *)** *action_block
> 
>  
> 
> But the Draft7 was correct and we need to revert this change. I added
a 
> new editor note 7672.
> 
>  
> 
> Let me know if you agree.
> 
>  
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
>  
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> 
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> 
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> 
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
is
> believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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