Brad Pierce wrote: > Forcing port collapsing would not be backward compatible. > >> If there is >> a desire to force implementations to coerce ports when possible, then >> there should be text saying that port collapsing must be done whenever >> possible (and clarifying some of the cases where it may not be clear >> whether it is possible). I think this exchange is at the core of all the objections. 1364 allows either port coercion and collapsing in implementations for historical reasons. The assumption is that the two are "equivalent". That is not the case. There are various cases that Steven and I have raised where that assumption breaks down. Any change to require either approach will cause serious objections from various vendors. Although I appreciate the desire to have a tighter LRM in this area, I just don't think it is feasible. Given the time remaining, I would suggest that we not spend further effort on this. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Oct 29 08:22:38 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 29 2007 - 08:22:52 PDT