RE: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Wed Jun 14 2006 - 02:35:52 PDT

I quote Cliff: "defparam was a good idea".

Almost any useful construct can be misused.

I searched through 1364-2005 and 1800-2005. The word "useful" is used 19
times in 1364-2005 and 28 times in 1800-2005.

Does anyone want to propose disallowing upwards defparams ?

Shalom

Received on Wed Jun 14 02:36:13 2006

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "RE: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards"
Previous message: Feldman, Yulik: "RE: [sv-bc] implicit declarations in port expressions"
Maybe in reply to: Brad Pierce: "[sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards"
Next in thread: Clifford E. Cummings: "RE: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 14 2006 - 02:36:25 PDT