RE: [sv-ec] 8.20 missing word

Yes, I see.
The comma would indeed make it clearer.

Thanks,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:48 PM
> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] 8.20 missing word
>
> >8.20 of Draft 8-preliminary says in sentence 2,
> >
> >"For example, a common base class of type BasePacket that
> sets out the
> >structure of packets but is incomplete would never be constructed."
> >
> >There needs to be a word between "incomplete" and "would",
> such as "and".
>
> I think it is correct.  That is the ending of a separate
> clause.  It might be clearer as
>
> "For example, a common base class of type BasePacket, that
> sets out the structure of packets but is incomplete, would
> never be constructed."
>
>
>
> 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.