RE: [sv-cc] item 50 again

A reasonable suggestion I think is to change "DPI-3.1a" to be "DPI" ... 50
goes out of its way to make sure we deprecate the 3.1a non-canonical way, so
it's better to not add this inconsistency. So my opinion is to use "DPI"
instead of "DPI-3.1a" and make this an easy sell.
 
Also, note Stu thinks "3.1a" (or "SV3.1a") should not be referenced anywhere
(not an IEEE standard) so cosmetic changes here and there (as in
svDpiVersion()) are also needed.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Architect, R&D
Novas Software, Inc.
(408) 467-7893
 
  _____  
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:26 AM
To: 'SV-CC'
Subject: [sv-cc] item 50 again
We need to discuss again item 50 with regard to the dpi_string_specifier.
Stuart brought up the fact that the "DPI" string is not legal as per item
50, this will create
incompatibility with previous legal sv31a code. He is asking for a rational
for why this
is not now legal and why the string DPI-sv31a is replacing DPI string.
 
Stuart is planning to attend the meeting tomorrow.
 
Francoise
       '