Chuck, I do not see any issues with the revised wording. Regarding IR2031, I agree that the sentences about the units are not necessory and should be removed. Regards, -ajay >> Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:03:38 -0700 >> To: isac@eda.org >> Subject: ISAC: IRs to review and a question about IR 2031 >> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/875/Tue May 10 04:27:59 2005 on server.eda.org >> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/875/Tue May 10 04:27:59 2005 on server.eda.org >> X-Virus-Status: Clean >> >> I am attaching 6 updated IRs which I have not >> yet added to the ISAC data base. >> Please review them. >> IR2020, 2031 and 2061 have rewording which you might want to improve. >> >> IR2029, 2044 and 2059 are very straightforward. >> >> Note that Peter updated IR2053 during the ballot phase. >> >> If I don't receive any suggestions in the next couple of days, I'll >> put them into the database. >> >> I have a question about IR2031: "mod" function needed for TIME >> >> The IR states: >> >> The units of the result of a mod operation are left to the >> implementation as long as the result satisfies the above >> relation. >> >> and >> The units of the result of a mod operation are left to the >> implementation as long as the result satisfies the above >> relation. >> >> My question is: Are these statements really necessary? >> We don't make any statements about other expressions involving time, >> such as 5ns + 2ps. Why do we need to say anything in the LRM about units >> for 5ns mod 2ps? >> Technically, all these values are computed using either the primary unit >> (fs) or using the resolution limit, >> so why do we need to say anything more? >> >> >> Chuck Swart >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Received on Wed May 11 02:46:18 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 11 2005 - 02:46:19 PDT