Re: [sv-dc] Draft of SV-DC roadmap

I would prefer to see something like "user defined type" used instead of
"real valued". The aim (I think) is to support low level hardware
modeling in ways that are not currently supported, which would include
RF modeling with types other than simple real values. SV has a whole
class type scheme already, seems limiting ourselves to "real valued"
probably won't simplify much.

Is the "X" and "Z" stuff really a "must"?

Might want to add a "could" or "should" for power supply connectivity,
and for back-annotation.

Kev.

On 09/06/2010 08:01 PM, Little Scott-B11206 wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have attached a draft of the SV-DC roadmap. We will discuss this in
> the SV-DC meeting on Wednesday. If you believe that the roadmap needs
> to be changed and would like to discuss it on the list prior to the
> meeting please send specific suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>

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