RE: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote -1609

I tend to agree that the sentence is out of place, but I still believe
it belongs in this clause, perhaps one sentence later, or after both
explicit and wildcard imports are introduced. But I would be willing to
open up another mantis item to move it. 

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-
> champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:23 PM
> To: sv-champions@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] 5-day email vote
> 
> Neil,
> 
> I vote NO on three items -- 1609, 1556, 1723
> 
>     http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1609
> 
>         1) The new text is out of place where proposed, as becomes
more
> apparent if you look at the full original paragraph instead of just
the
> proposal in isolation.  The better place for this restriction is a
> normative footnote in the BNF, specifically on the first production in
> class_property of A.1.8.  It should say something like, "It shall be
> illegal for a data_declaration in a class_property to be a
> package_import_declaration."
> 
> 

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