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

Jonathan,

Thanks for doing the research on cross-reference changes. I knew the clause
number change would involve a little detective work, and you have saved me
that effort!

The renumbering will affect a few other Mantis items approved for draft 3
and that modify Clause 8, as well. That's part of the joys of editing such
a large document.. L (Being such a clever fellow, though, I'll make all the
other changes first, and then go back and do the renumbering. Then it's
only the reviewers who will get confused. J)

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland

Sutherland HDL, Inc.

stuart@sutherland-hdl.com

503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com

From: Jonathan Bromley [mailto:jonathanbromley@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:36 AM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
Cc: Stuart Sutherland; neil.korpusik@oracle.com; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Minor problem with Mantis 3001

Stu,

I think I agree with Mehdi - the proposal would be unharmed if you were to
renumber the proposed subclause 8.7.1 to be 8.8.

The only catch is that various references to 8.x within the proposal text
would then be wrong. I found the following:

8.7 (would remain unchanged)
8.12 (becomes 8.13)
8.14 (becomes 8.15)
8.24 (becomes 8.25)

and, in the section "Add text to 8.11" the target subclause would then be
8.12, and the self-reference would be 8.8 instead of 8.7.1.

Thanks
Jonathan

On 04/11/2011 13:26, Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:

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:

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

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

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

-- 
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.