Subject: RE: FW: arguments on removal of "static"
From: Srouji, Johny (johny.srouji@intel.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 07:48:11 PST
Hi Steven,
I don't recall there was a discussion and a voting process followed by a
decision to remove the "static" keyword from the language. As far as I know,
there was no official decision to remove it.
I have also forwarded the questions and issues you have raised to Peter who
has answered them in details. One of the obvious dependencies was that it is
needed by the testbench committee. I can take the action of verifying the
details of this dependency w/ their chair. We can also ask Peter to clarify
some of the issues wrt "static" in our next F2F meeting (or next tele-call).
Regards,
--- Johny.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:24 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: Re: FW: arguments on removal of "static"
I don't believe that Peter has raised any issues that were not already
discussed by the group before making its decision.
There needs to be a process for fixing significant problems in the 3.0
specification. This group has agreed that this change should be made.
Many of this group are representatives from companies that are voting
members of Accellera. Decisions within Accellera are supposed to be
made by representatives of the member companies.
I would suggest that everyone working for a member company speak to
their board representative about a solution for this problem. I can
see two possible solutions. The first would be to get the Basic
Committee charter extended to allow us to fix any problems in the
3.0 specification. If the board is not willing to delegate that power
to us, a second solution would be to create another committee to make
the final decision on our recommendations. Such a committee should have
fair and equal representation from the member companies.
Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 07:49:42 PST