RE: ISAC: Some comments on LRM review for Monday's meeting

Chuck,

Thanks for reviewing this.

> D4.3 clean version page 475 line 15: maybe "boolean" should 
> be "Boolean". However, this is in a comment in a C header 
> file, so I'm not sure.

Rather than opening the can of worms (case of identifiers in the VHPI code
and information model), I've left it as is.

> D4.3 clean version page 487
> three references to "denormalize:boolean" two references to 
> "check_error:boolean"
> These should all be BOOLEAN.

Actually on page 554 of D4.3 clean. Fixed now.

> I hope that we will not have to go over #208 again (ever) because its 
> very time consuming.

Me too!

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden         peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.    www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                    VoIP: sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net
Stirling, SA 5152             Phone: +61 8 7127 0078
Australia                     Mobile: +61 414 70 9106 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-isac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-isac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Swart - MTI
> Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2008 09:05
> To: isac@server.eda.org
> Subject: ISAC: Some comments on LRM review for Monday's meeting
> 
> 
> I compared the Bugzilla descriptions in the ballot resolution 
> document 
> with the on-line Bugzilla issues
> and they agree in substance.
> 
> I have started to validate Bugz issues against draft D4.3.
> Bugz #208 is very long (43 typos reported) and is hard to 
> verify because 
> most
> of the fixed typos are not annotated for various (good) 
> reasons. Anyway, I've compared the two clean versions of D4.2 
> and D4.3 and the fixes for #208 are incorporated with one set 
> of exceptions:
> 
> D4.3 clean version page 475 line 15: maybe "boolean" should 
> be "Boolean". However, this is in a comment in a C header 
> file, so I'm not sure.
> 
> D4.3 clean version page 487
> three references to "denormalize:boolean" two references to 
> "check_error:boolean"
> These should all be BOOLEAN.
> 
> I hope that we will not have to go over #208 again (ever) because its 
> very time consuming.
> 
> Chuck Swart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.