RE: [sv-bc] Wrong example in protected envelope

I agree, though I would say that the tool is lenient and not necessarily that it is a bug.

In addition:

1. In Syntax 22-8, in the first production:

pragma ::=
    `pragma pragma_name [ pragma_expression { , pragma_expression } ]

the curly brackets should not be red.

2. Also in 34.3.1, in the following lines:

`pragma protect encoding=(enctype="raw")
`pragma protect data_method="x-caesar", data_keyname="rot13", begin

"enctype" and "data_keyname" should be bold.

Thanks,
Shalom
________________________________
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Surya Pratik Saha
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:28 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Cc: Sourasis Das
Subject: [sv-bc] Wrong example in protected envelope

Hi,
In SV 2009 LRM, there is an example in "section 34.3.1 Encryption"

`pragma protect data_block encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190)

Please note, a comma ',' is missing in between 'data_block' and 'encloding' keyword. But as per the BNF stated in "22.11 `pragma", the comma ',' is must. One standard tool passes the case though. Can we assume that is a bug in the tool and LRM needs a correction here. Please clarify, if required I can then file a Mantis.

--
Regards
Surya
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.