Shabtay said: > I support the idea that an implementation can address a subset of the > standard as long the owner of the implementation states that the > implementation is partially compliant (with a language or feature > subset). The issue I am raising is whether it makes sense for us to write the new standard such that support for any language combination (e.g., C/VHDL, C++/oldVerilog, etc.) is optional. What I mean is, should an implementation be allowed to call itself fully compliant for a specific set of language combinations. This implies full disclosure of what those combinations are, of course. The advantage of the above is that any vendor can assess its market and its customers and focus its efforts on the langauge combination or combinations that its customers are actually asking for and still get the stamp of being a compliant implementation. However, this is probably a moot point currently since we do not have a way to prove compliance . . . Per -- Per Bojsen Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com> Zaiq Technologies, Inc. WWW: http://www.zaiqtech.com 78 Dragon Ct. Tel: 781 721 8229 Woburn, MA 01801 Fax: 781 932 7488Received on Fri Sep 16 11:15:34 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 11:15:52 PDT