RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

Actually I agree as well.  The first time I read it, it seemed
redundant, but on further readings I saw that it needed to stay.  In the
V2 proposal I put that back in and I don't know how the V3 version had
the strikethrough added again. I have fixed it in the V4 version.  

-Tom

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
>Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:52 AM
>To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; Maidment, Matthew R;
sv-bc@server.eda.org
>Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
>
>I agree.
>
>Shalom
>
>> > SVDB 1339 ___Yes   _X_No
>> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1339
>>
>> I think striking the phrase "not preceded by a backslash" is
>> the wrong thing to do.  Since the preceding sentence is
>> talking about preceding a newline with a backslash, this
>> phrase is necessary in order to make it clear that it not the
>> backslash-newline that ends the macro text.  I will change my
>> vote to yes if this phrase is left in.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.