Re: enhancement/350: PROPOSAL - Deprecate configs in Verilog source

From: Shalom Bresticker (Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 00:37:59 PDT

  • Next message: Michael McNamara: "RE: enhancement/350: PROPOSAL - Deprecate configs in Verilog source"

    If so, I apologize.

    However, the same applies for you and Dennis as well.

    BTW, why did your spell checker not change the other three mentions of Verilog
    in your mail as well?

    You really should avoid having spell checkers automatically 'correct' things.

    We once had a document on MPEG in which the word allocator was 'corrected' to
    alligator.

    Shalom

    Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com wrote:

    > Hi Shalom,
    > My spell checker automatically changed Verilog to Virology.
    > Blame this on my Outlook and not me. There is no one that can match my
    > Zeal to Verilog. So, please do not jump to conclusions. You are not the
    > only one who takes care of Verilog. You need to investigate things
    > carefully before you start accusation and issuing complaints.
    >
    > Vassilios
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: shalom@il06exr04.mot.com [mailto:shalom@il06exr04.mot.com] On
    > Behalf Of Shalom Bresticker
    > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:57 AM
    > To: Gerousis Vassilios (CL DAT CS)
    > Cc: Shalom Bresticker; dennisb@model.com; etf@boyd.com
    > Subject: Re: enhancement/350: PROPOSAL - Deprecate configs in Verilog
    > source
    >
    > Vassilios,
    >
    > The use of a term such as "Virology 2001" is demagoguery and has no
    > place in a professional society. If you will not refrain from such a
    > style of comments, I will turn to DASC to call you to order.
    >
    > As for backward compatiblity, of course that is a valid technical
    > concern and a valid subject of debate. I never claimed otherwise.
    >
    > My objection referred to Dennis's impugning the motives of committee
    > members, as anyone who read my mail objectively would clearly see.
    >
    > Shalom
    >
    > Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com wrote:
    >
    > > Dennis email points out certain facts about backward compatibility of
    > > IEEE standard versions. Does the committee plan to build an IEEE 2005
    > > version that is not backward compatible with IEEE 2001 version? Dennis
    >
    > > pointed out that there are existing models and tools that support the
    > > current Verilog 2001 version. The question that should be answered by
    > > this committee, do you want to allow non-compliance to existing
    > > standards (i.e. Verilog 2001)? Shall tool implementers wait for
    > > Verilog 2010 to ensure that certain functionality in 2005 is not
    > > deprecated?
    > >
    > > Backward compatibility is an extremely serious matter and should be
    > > addressed in an "equitable" manner that give confidence to users and
    > > tool vendors alike. By obsolescing backward compatibility, you are
    > > rewarding non-early adopters of Virology 2001 rather than awarding
    > > early adopters.
    >
    > --
    > Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker
    > @freescale.com
    > Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9
    > 9522268
    > Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9
    > 9522890
    > POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50
    > 5441478
    >
    > [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only
    > [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary 

    --
Shalom Bresticker                         Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                            Tel: +972 9  9522268
Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                  Fax: +972 9  9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                      Cell: +972 50 5441478

    [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only
[ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 17 2004 - 00:17:34 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.