Subject: Making ballot responses consistent
From: Jayaram Bhasker (JBhasker@esilicon.com)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 06:46:40 PDT
Here is my feedback on going through all the ballot comments to make sure
that they are consistent.
(The reference is the ballot response document posted on the website).
SG01: Remove the convention for uppercase for identifiers. All ids to be
made lowercase across the document
for consistency. Make all synthesis attributes non-bold as these are not
reserved words in the language.
In 6.1.1, delete "and shall have the following interpretations".
SG02: Typo in second example. Should be "OUT <= 1'bz;"
SG05, SG06: Change "may" to "shall" to be consistent with previous para.
TDH06: Change to "..storage device with optionally a synchronous set."
JL02: Typo: Subissue 2 - "It is an error if ..."
JM12: Add "Same for ROM/RAM attributes as well".
PJM01: Also make NOTE uppercase.
PJM04: Change to "This annex" to be consistent with following item.
PJM10: Change to "..using a continuous assignment or a net declaration
assignment."
PJM12: Add "See SAB02".
PJM13: I presume the author meant Example 17. Change "// i.e. Q" to "//i.e.,
Q".
KLP05: Replace with "Agreed".
SS01: Item 11: Not numbered since it is part of a note.
SEW03: All of the attributes have been made consistent by using non-bold.
- bhasker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 06:53:48 PDT