RE: [sv-bc] Enum proposal uploaded

Thanks. Since the uniqueness check and the automatic incrementing are described just two paragraphs above, I don't think there should be confusion. So I will favor the more explicit version (enumeval_v3.pdf).

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:31 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-bc@eda.org; Bresticker, Shalom
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Enum proposal uploaded
> 
> 
> >From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
> >I agree, but I think it should be made more explicit.
> 
> I have uploaded two new variations of the proposal.  The first states
> that the value of the name is the value after the cast.  It 
> then relies
> on the fact that the descriptions of these other situations refer to
> the value of the name.
> 
> The second variation goes further and tries to state that this really
> is the value used in those situations.  This is more explicit, but
> risks somebody getting confused between the full descriptions of those
> situations, and the abbreviated description here.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.