Thanks, Gord. I came to the same conclusion for the same reasoning. If some disagrees, please post your dissent soon. Otherwise I will publish a proposal to this effect for inclusion in the next e-mail ballot. Matt -- Matt Maidment mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On >Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil >Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:36 AM >To: Maidment, Matthew R >Cc: sv-bc@eda.org >Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 1828 > >Given the definition of "should" in 1.5, I agree >the "should" is appropriate in the contexts indicated >by 1858. If someone wants to make a proposal, I wouldn't >object. I'm not going to offer to write the proposal however. > >Gord. > > >Maidment, Matthew R wrote: >> I've added a bug note for 1828 >> >> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1828 >> >> Would SV-BC members please comment on this issue? >> >> I can see 2 outcomes: >> >> resolve with no action >> create proposal to change 'may' or 'can' to 'should' for always_* >> >> >> Matt >> -- >> Matt Maidment >> mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com >> >> >> > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Feb 4 14:02:11 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 04 2008 - 14:03:12 PST