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

I don't feel this is major enough to justify voting NO.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:02 AM
> To: Brad Pierce; sv-champions@server.eda.org
> Cc: Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> Subject: 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.