RE: [sv-ec] ballot issue #121

I do not consider this an "editorial fix" because it refers to a conflict
between normative text in 19.7.1 (draft 8) and the BNF.  If the clause had
contained an excerpt from the BNF and the excerpt was out of sync, then
updating the excerpt would have been editorial and could be assigned to the
editor without committee vote.  That is not the case for this ballot
comment, and I would prefer that the EC actually vote on approving Dave's
suggested fix.  Hopefully it will be a simple e-mail vote that has no
contention.

 

Stu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stuart Sutherland

stuart@sutherland-hdl.com

(503) 692-0898

 

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Swapnajit Chakraborti
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:26 AM
To: Scott, David; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] ballot issue #121

 

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

Regds,

Swapnajit

 

  _____  

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Scott,
David
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:02 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] ballot issue #121

This one is marked as "Editorial" and reads:

type_option is shown to be a constant_expression in the BNF in page 474. In
this page it is shown to be an "expression".

The prescribed fix is:

Change "type_option.option_name = expression" to "type_option.option_name =
constant_expression"

I completely agree.  This is certainly an editorial fix.

 

-- David

 

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 


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