John and the rest of the team, I strongly recommend against including cbValueChange changes as part of the handle and object lifetime Mantis item. I am sure that if we do, there will be enough effort at clarification of the limits, and even the wording, that we will not be able to finish the Mantis item on time. I can see already several problems with wording in the existing proposals, and questions that we'd have to work through the answers to. Let's keep the focus on handle and object lifetimes in an effort to get at least this proposal through. Regards, Jim Vellenga --------------------------------------------------------- James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 Software Architect (FAX) 978-262-6636 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com 270 Billerica Rd Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 "We all work with partial information." ---------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Shields, John Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:20 PM To: sv-cc@eda.org Subject: [sv-cc] updated mantis item 2226 with proposal Hi, This is detailed proposal of the information model for dynamic objects. There are changes to clause 36 and 37 in 2 documents. Regards, John Shields Mentor Graphics, Inc. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Mar 20 06:28:53 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 20 2008 - 06:29:12 PDT