RE: [sv-dc] Editorial change for Mantis 3398

6.7.1 seems like the right reference to me.

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 2:42 PM
To: sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Editorial change for Mantis 3398

A ripple effect...

Later in the proposal there is a change:

At the end of 7.2.2 Assigning to structures, modify:
The initial assignment expression within a data type shall be ignored when using a data type to declare a net that does not have a user-defined nettype (see 6.7).

Should the cross reference 6.7 be changed to the 6.7.1 I suggested be added? I do not see any other cross references that might be affected.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com<http://www.sutherland-hdl.com>

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Little Scott-B11206
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Arturo Salz; Stuart Sutherland; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Editorial change for Mantis 3398

Agreed.

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Arturo Salz
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Stuart Sutherland; sv-dc@eda.org<mailto:sv-dc@eda.org>
Subject: RE: [sv-dc] Editorial change for Mantis 3398

That numbering seems eminently reasonable and much cleaner.

                Arturo

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 12:13 PM
To: sv-dc@eda.org<mailto:sv-dc@eda.org>
Subject: [sv-dc] Editorial change for Mantis 3398

All,

I would like permission to make an editorial change to the subclause numbering proposed in Mantis 3398. The proposal has the change:

In section 6.7 Net declaration, below the syntax table 6-1

Change:

Net declarations without assignments are described in this clause.

To:

Net declarations without assignments and whose nettype is not a user-defined nettype are described in this clause.

At the end of 6.7 Net declaration, ADD 2 new sections
6.7.1 Net Declaration with user-defined nettype

The two changes contradict each other. The first says 6.7 doesn't describe something, and the second change then adds that description to 6.7 (as subclauses).

In looking things over, I think a clean way to handle this is to create a new 6.7.1 subclause right before the sentence, "Net declarations without assignments...". The new subclause would be titled "6.7.1 Net declarations with built-in net types". The proposed 6.7.1 would become 6.7.2, and so on.

Is this renumbering OK?

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com<http://www.sutherland-hdl.com>

--
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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
--
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<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.