Re: [sv-ec] proposals for 2848 and 2845

For 2848 it is unclear whether the intent is to disallow use based on
the existence of a strong type or whether an access is needed. I'd
prefer the former. For 2845 the terminology confuses interface and
instance. I think the intent is that only the interface instances
that have been a defparam target are disllowed from being referenced
but the language could be read as disallowing a virtual interface ref
if any instance was defparamed. Which was the intent?

Gordon
===========
Gord Vreugdenhil
gordonv@model.com

On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:25 PM, "Francoise Martinolle" <fm@cadence.com>
wrote:

> I uploaded 2 draft proposals for 2848 and 2845 (virtual interfaces).
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by 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.