hi EC I don't have voting rights for the current email vote, but I've taken a look anyway - herewith some comments and suggestions that may be relevant. 1384 ~~~~ The second part of this proposal (the part affecting clause 11) interacts somewhat with 1707, which we passed a little while ago. I suspect the required changes are obvious and editorial only, but I'm not quite sure how we're supposed to proceed in a situation like this - do we need explicit new proposal text? 1723 ~~~~ Grammatical nit-pick: the "correction" of 'is' to 'are' in the first sentence of the proposal is incorrect, since that verb's subject is the singular "syntax" rather than the pair of methods. 2055 ~~~~ Friendly amendment: in both places where the proposal has "then the last (.... modulo N) bins shall include an additional value", it would be more elegant and clearer to write "then *each of* the last (... modulo N) bins shall include *one* additional value". -- 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 Sat Oct 20 07:57:34 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 20 2007 - 07:58:14 PDT