Comments regarding August 6 minutes: "1745 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1745) Shalom moves to accept proposal. Don seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Motion passes. Shalom immediately updated the proposal for SVDB 1957 with friendly amendment" The last line is an error, accidentally copied from preceding issue. There was no amendment to 1745, either. "917 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=917) Shalom withdraws current proposal." The murky wording in the proposal was simply copied from existing text, but I have now reworded it, and there is an updated proposal. No change to minutes needed. " Don leads discussion about a potential enhancement, desired by his customers, of being able to parameterize configurations. Gord warns that there are still some unresolved issues about configurations and that parameters would be a substantial enhancement. AI: Don to initiate reflector discussion about parameterizing configurations." Regarding this subject, I noticed the following in the description of 1134: "Also note - one complaint that I have heard about Verilog-2001 configurations is that we did not provide a means of changing parameters from a config file. Seems like adding the #(.name(value)) syntax to the instance assignment might be the best approach. I would recommend NOT allowing defparam!" No change to minutes needed. "For a future meeting: + Issues 1745 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1745) 1935 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1935) 1939 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1939) 1945 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1945)" This looks like a mistake. Of the 4, only 1939 is not in the resolved state. Shalom -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Aug 20 00:55:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 20 2007 - 00:55:30 PDT