Hi, I have no authorization to put mantis. So it will be better if someone put the mantis on behalf of me. Thanks and regards , Moumita Bresticker, Shalom wrote: >You're right! > >This took me a little while to find. > >The origin of class_qualifier is in Mantis 1858. > >The proposal contains an additional change that was by mistake not colored, so that both the editor and the reviewer missed it. > >The change is from: > >primary ::= > primary_literal > | [ implicit_class_handle . | class_scope | package_scope ] hierarchical_identifier select > ... > >TO > >primary ::= > primary_literal > | [class_qualifier | package_scope] hierarchical_identifier select > ... > >The affected line appears only in Annex A. > >This is obviously a pure editorial correction and should be fixed in the ballot version. > >It would be nice to put on Mantis a new version of the proposal with the coloring fixed. > >Thanks, >Shalom > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org >>[mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Moumita Das >>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:09 PM >>To: sv-bc@server.eda.org; sv-ec@server.eda.org >>Subject: [sv-ec] class_qualifier is not used anywhere >> >>Hello, >> >>In SV 2009 draft LRM, I have found the following BNF - >> >>class_qualifier := [ local:: ] [ implicit_class_handle . | >>class_scope ] >> >>But I have not seen any usage of this rule(class_qualifier). >> >>Am I missing anything? >> >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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.Received on Mon Jan 5 05:35:30 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 05:37:31 PST