Jim- re. (2) You are correct- these should show p_vpi_arrayvalue instead of s_vpi_arrayvalue, and they are not covered by a Mantis item yet. The argument *descriptions* are correct, but inconsistent with the type as shown. I will post a Mantis item for this. Thanks, Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Jim Vellenga Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:55 PM To: Charlie Dawson Cc: SV-CC Subject: Re: [sv-cc] Call for email vote on Mantis Item 1775 Sorry that it's taken me so long to respond. This job hunting business is time-consuming. (1) I vote yes on the proposal as of today for Mantis Item 1775. (2) But to check out Chuck's latest additions, I looked up vpi_get_value_array() and vpi_put_value_array() in draft8-preliminary. The argument tables look wrong in both. I believe that the type of the second argument in each case should be p_vpi_arrayvalue rather than s_vpi_arrayvalue in each case, right? And the table entry separators for the remaining arguments are extending too far to the left. Is this being taken care of either editorially or by another Mantis Item already? Regards, Jim Vellenga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Vellenga (jvellenga@alum.mit.edu) Senior software engineer for team-based development; skilled at team- building while retaining a detailed technical knowledge of the project itself. Excellent at negotiating clear definitions (standards, interfaces, etc.) across functional and industry boundaries. 781-646-6778 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Dawson wrote: > Hi All, > > Please respond to the email with Yes, No, or Abstain on Item 1775. > > Thanks, > > -Chas > > -- 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.Received on Tue Feb 17 07:35:48 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 17 2009 - 07:36:42 PST