From: Steven Sharp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 06 2005 - 16:19:57 PDT
>From: "Stuart Sutherland" <email@example.com>
>Cliff wants to change:
>P1365-1995 to 1364-1995
>P1365-2001 to 1364-2001
>P1365-2005 to 1364-2005
>P1800-2005 to 1800-2005
>I agree that P1364-1995 and P1364-2001 should be changed. Those are true
>typos in the current draft of the proposal. However, the IEEE reviewers of
>the P1800 draft prior to the ballot draft explicitly stated that all
>references to the proposed 1364-2005 and 1800-2005 needed to be preceded by
>"P" before we could go to ballot. Supposedly, the IEEE editors (not the
>working group editors) do a search for "P1364" and "P1800" after the voting
>is completed and approved, and replace them with "1364" and "1800".
This is not a "reference" to those standards in a text description. It is
a part of the language being defined. If the IEEE editors change it, then
they are changing the Verilog language itself, which would be an improper
action on their part. We should define the language correctly, and require
them to leave it alone. We should not deliberately define it incorrectly,
and expect them to improperly change it to get what we wanted.
So I agree with Cliff on this. It may be an awkward editing situation,
but to do otherwise would result in publishing a definition of the language
that was different from what we actually approved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Fri May 06 2005 - 15:55:44 PDT
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.