[sv-bc] SV LRM review issues

I found no problems for errata 21, 110, 213, 214, 216, 217, 220, 226 or 323.

I also found nothing obvious in my section review of sections 2 and 24.

I did not have time to review erratum 168 (data types on nets).

I found a problem with erratum 213, which was my mistake, not Stu's. Where
the proposal says to add the new operators to the first line of table 7-2,
this is incorrect. They should be added on the same line where the old
operators are being deleted, so that they have the same precedence. This
mistake was caused because table 7-2 was split across two pages in the old
draft, and the modified line is the first line in the continuation of the
table on the second page. I have noted this in a bugnote on the erratum.

I found a couple of problems with erratum 218. The first change in 8.4,
at the bottom of page 103 of the new draft, was supposed to delete the
words "run-time" before "error" (which has now been changed to "warning").
They did not get deleted. On the next page, in the paragraph on
if-statements, the text says "hence that it is safe the", where it should
say "hence that it is safe _for_ the". Looking back through my mail, I
see that Brad also found the missing "for". I noted these issues in a
bugnote on the erratum.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
Received on Sun Jan 23 16:35:11 2005