Re: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6

In my browser (and print-out, since I like to proofread hardcopy), I see 
uniform indentation of these lines in the proposal for 1655.  So I'll 
set status back to editor to correct the indentation in Draft 6 ... 
after doing the rest of my proofreading.

I like the proposed comments, too, by the way.

Dave


Neil Korpusik wrote:
> Hi Arturo,
>
> Yes, please do.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> Arturo Salz wrote:
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> Thanks for the message - I mistakenly missed today's meeting due to an
>> email malfunction.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with you. The problem is precisely the indentation, which
>> made it look as if the auto-bins were the constituents of the
>> user-defined bin i_zero. I understood what David wrote but forgot to
>> attach a proposal to the Mantis I created. The equivalent text you write
>> below seems like a very nice way to resolve this issue. Should I add
>> this as an official proposal?
>>
>>     Arturo
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] Sent: 
>> Monday, July 07, 2008 4:33 PM
>> To: David Scott
>> Cc: Arturo Salz; SV_EC List
>> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6
>>
>> Hi Arturo,
>>
>> We breifly discussed this point in the sv-ec conference call this
>> morning.
>> No further progress was made in the meeting. Mehdi put it on the agenda
>> since
>> you hadn't responded to David's latest email (copied below) and he
>> wanted to
>> make sure that no changes were required.
>>
>> I just now took a look at this and found that I had to read it about 4
>> times
>> before I realized what it was saying. Maybe I'm slow, but I suspect that
>> you
>> were having a similar problem when you read it in the LRM.
>>
>> Note that the indentation used here is most likely a source of part of
>> the
>> confusion. The following is in the LRM. I don't know about everone elses
>> browser, but in my browser I see this indentation showing up in the html
>> version of the Mantis 1655 proposal. The Editor duplicated what I see
>> there.
>>
>>      i_zero
>>         <i[1],j[0]>
>>         <i[1],j[1]>
>>
>> This is equivalent to the following
>>
>>      i_zero            // user-specified bin for <i[0],j[0]> and
>> <i[0],j[1]>
>>      <i[1],j[0]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained
>>      <i[1],j[1]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained
>>
>> The text is NOT showing what is represented by bin i_zero. Instead it is
>> showing the 3 bins that are retained for cross x2. i_zero is a separate
>> bin of
>> its own.
>>
>> I agree with David, in that what is shown is consistent with the text
>> added
>> by Mantis 1655. I do however think that adding some comments and
>> adjusting the
>> indentation would help the reader. Note that cross x1 also uses this odd
>> indentation style.
>>
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
>> David Scott wrote:
>>> Arturo,
>>>
>>> This is Mantis 1655 (http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1655) and the 
>>> "i[1]" is correct.  This was approved by the SV-EC.
>>>
>>> The reasoning is that cross products involving "i[0]" are already 
>>> covered by i_zero because that cross bin was specified with the select
>>
>>> expression involving "intersect { 0 }".  The point of the Mantis was
>> to
>>> specify that automatically-generated bins are also within the cross,
>> but
>>> only for those cross products not already specified by the
>> user-defined
>>> cross bins.  That leaves the two automatically-generated cross product
>>
>>> bins involving "i[1]".
>>>
>>> -- David S
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arturo Salz wrote:
>>>> There is a typo in the example of section 18.6 (page 468) of draft 6.
>>>>
>>>> The i[1] is incorrect, it should be i[0].
>>>> The explanation of cross-products should be changed
>>>>
>>>> FROM
>>>>
>>>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>>>     i_zero
>>>>         <i[1],j[0]>
>>>>         <i[1],j[1]>
>>>>
>>>> TO
>>>>
>>>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>>>     i_zero
>>>>         <i[0],j[0]>
>>>>         <i[0],j[1]>
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is just a typo. This is Mantis 2428.
>>>>
>>>>     Arturo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.