Shalom, > I don't understand. > How can sv-ec close 1809? It's an sv-BC issue! I think this should probably be 974 instead of 1809. 974 was the highest-numbered item on my original hit-list. All the items in question are now marked as children of, and should have been completely covered by, 1702. 1809 is squarely in name-resolution land. If I've ever suggested that 1702 affects it, I apologise: plainly they're not related. -- 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 Wed Dec 12 12:39:10 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 12:39:41 PST