RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ac] checker: Clarification on functions & side effects

From: Seligman, Erik <erik.seligman_at_.....>
Date: Fri Oct 02 2009 - 06:57:35 PDT
Ben brings up an important point here-as we have seen in his many emails, the current LRM leaves some ambiguities, and areas that probably need more explanation than is directly in the LRM.
The official way to record these issues is with the Mantis system; but IMHO, a database search is kind of a clunky mechanism for these kinds of clarifications.

Is there any objection to us creating a public SV errata/commentary wiki, where we could organize these things in a quickly acceesible way?  Such a page would be unofficial, but might be quite useful.  (I'd prefer to make such a page public rather than requiring users to signup & login, to maximize it's usefulness, but am wondering if there are legal complications due to the fact that the IEEE std is proprietary.)

________________________________
 3) Given that the LRM is pretty much fixed, is there a mechanism to clarify issues such as this?  Perhaps mantises?


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Oct 2 06:59:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 02 2009 - 07:02:46 PDT