Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > Matt, > > I think 1809 should have been on the ballot also? No. That was an intentional omission since Francoise had objections to the current proposal's handling of imported names in the presence of forward function references. She owns writing up a counter proposal. We had previously agreed that we will bring 1809 forward for a vote as is on the 10th (I think) if no counter proposal was made by then. When this was discussed, no one objected to what Francoise was suggesting; the main issue was in the amount of time it was going to take to write up and really correctly integrate into the LRM since her suggested approach was going to require a less immediate handling of "import" than what the LRM currently has. Getting that right in the LRM for all scenarios is likely not going to be easy. The current 1809 proposal is more restrictive (it would fail to compile some designs that Francoise's proposal would compile) so both Mark H. and I were comfortable accepting 1809 for this rev of the LRM. Gord > > If time allows, I'd like to look at 1345 again today, after finishing > the proposal based on last week's discussion. > > Thanks, > 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 Dec 3 07:59:56 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 03 2007 - 08:00:08 PST