RE: [sv-ec] 8.19 virtual method encapsulation criteria

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Sun May 04 2008 - 00:29:11 PDT
If even you had trouble, it surely should be clarified.

How about "the encapsulation qualification (see 8.17)" or
"the encapsulation qualification (local, protected)"?

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:20 PM
> To: sv-ec@eda.org; Bresticker, Shalom
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] 8.19 virtual method encapsulation criteria
> 
> 
> >From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
> >What are the 'encapsulation criteria' referred to here?
> >Is the reader going to understand?
> 
> I had to think about it for a minute before realizing that it 
> was probably talking about the qualifiers such as 'local' and 
> 'protected'.
> 
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Sun May 4 00:31:14 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 04 2008 - 00:31:57 PDT