Subject: Re: [sv-bc] SV-BC BNF updates
From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 10:46:27 PST
Dan writes --
>3. SV-BC82 (http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0538.html) was rejected due to the
>fact that it is superceded. What proposal supercedes this one (please refer
>the reflector link) and when was the BNF accepted.
This confusion is my fault, caused by --
http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0635.html
SV-BC82 was not superceded by anything. Nor was it approved. My voting
comments about SV-BC84 were really intended to be about SV-BC82.
I would like to withdraw my proposal for SV-BC82 because the fix is only
partial (it does not fix function/task ports), because I think we should
simplify the BNF for port declarations instead of making it more
complicated,
and because I think there's not time enough left to do all this with the
care
it deserves.
-- Brad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 10:47:42 PST