Sorry - I originally misread this as having changed the "may" coerce to "shall". You are right -- the "shall" is still just on the warning. So that part is Ok. I think the locality of the read (or write) is still too strict -- other effects can participate. Gord. Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > Gord, > >> The proposed change to "shall" >> is a big problem for sure. > > There is *no* change to "shall". > > The existing LRM says that in the case in question, coercion *may* > occur. If not, then a warning *shall* be issued. The proposal does not > touch that. So what are you talking about? > > 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. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 09:01:57 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 29 2007 - 09:02:06 PDT