RE: [sv-ec] Minor problem with Mantis 3001

Hi Stu,
I think option number 3 makes more sense, without re-arranging too much the
current proposal. Any other suggestion is welcome as well. I know Jonathan is
looking at this as well.
Thanks,
Mehdi

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:40 PM
To: 'Mehdi Mohtashemi'
Cc: neil.korpusik@oracle.com; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] Minor problem with Mantis 3001

Mehdi,

There is a minor problem with Mantis 3001 that I am hoping we can correct as I am doing the editing of implementing this item in Draft 3. The proposal calls for creating a new subclause 8.7.1, but that violates an IEEE rule that we cannot have just a single subclause at a given level. In other words, we cannot have an 8.7.1 without also having an 8.7.2.

Some possible ways to fix this include:

1. Make all the new text part of 8.7 without having a subclause title

2. Split some of the existing 8.7 into a new 8.7.1 (making this proposal be 8.7.2)

3. Make this new subclause be 8.8 (bumping up the number of all subsequent subclauses)

Please let me know which way you would like me to proceed. I hope to finish draft 3 by the end of the day, Friday Nov 4th.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com<http://www.sutherland-hdl.com>

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