RE: [sv-bc] E-mal Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Sunday Sep 30, 2007

Shalom,

Can you please explain your conflict in terms of proposed wording that
alleviates the conflict? I fail to see the problem as well.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:40 PM
> To: Warmke, Doug; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mal Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Sunday Sep 30,
2007
> 
> Doug,
> 
> > Second, I fail to see how this violates Mantis 1851.
> > Can you please explain why you think that, Shalom?
> > I studied both proposals carefully.  If you consider that
> > it's only legal to omit default values of parameters
> > specified in parameter port lists, the rest of the sentences
> > make sense and are consistent with 1851, in my opinion.
> 
> The conflict between 907 and 1851 is that 907, which is based on
current
> text, says/implies that internal parameter declarations are
localparams
> only if there is a parameter port list, as with modules. 1851, which
is
> based on Mantis 1515 and other LRM text, says that internal parameter
> declarations in a class are always localparams, even if there is no
> parameter port list at all, and so also says the proposal for 1851.
> 
> Regards,
> Shalom
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.