I vote NO on 2008. I disagree with Doug about the compatibility break. All the designers that I recall speaking to this have said that the current semantics are useless in practice. I don't see any point in retaining semantics that real designers are rejecting. Brad observes that the simplest thing to do right now would be to just change the semantics. I agree. I think we should either base the language on the AC's approach in 2005 or wait until 2005 is finalized and then appeal to it. Gord Maidment, Matthew R wrote: > > -You have until 8am PST, Monday, January 21, 2008 to respond > -An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible > voters respond with a YES vote. > -If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason. > The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference call. > -Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note > (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). > > As of the January 7, 2008 meeting, the eligible voters are: > > Brad Pierce > Shalom Bresticker > Cliff Cummings > Mark Hartoog > Francoise Martinolle > Karen Pieper > Dave Rich > Steven Sharp > Gordon Vreugdenhil > Stu Sutherland > Alex Gran > Don Mills > Heath Chambers > Tom Alsop > Doug Warmke > Mike Burns > > SVDB 2008 ___Yes ___No > _http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008_ > > _ > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. _ -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Jan 15 09:09:37 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2008 - 09:09:47 PST