Doug, > sorry I didn't grok your comments here a bit better. no apology required - I think I'm happy to agree that the current text captures the intent adequately; in most cases I was just fiddling around trying to make it easier to understand for ordinary foot-soldiers like me. And I was completely wrong about my concern over assertions clocked by @cb; as you and Gord have both pointed out to me, it's not an issue. > "at the end of Observed" could probably be rephrased. > "during the Observed" might be fine. I think I would be happier with that change. > > 15.14.2 Driving clocking output signals > > I think we've already looked at the issue of glitches when > > there are multiple passes through Re-NBA. The paragraph > > beginning "It is possible for the scheduling loop described > > in 9-1" seems again to deliver an unjustified statement[...] > DOUG: Why is the statement unjustified? I don't dispute the statement; only that, as a reader, I couldn't easily see how it was derived. I'm always a little nervous about appeal to examples in normative text. However, if everyone else is OK with it I'm more than happy to concede and disappear back into my pedantic little corner like Eeyore. Many thanks again for all your efforts. -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Mar 30 01:37:28 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 30 2007 - 01:37:35 PDT