Re: WG Status

John, All,

At 16 Mar 2010 09:48:46 +0000 john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The soft deadline for enhancement requests has now passed. I have
> catalogued 11 enhancement requests and about 60 errors/ambiguities. On the
> face of it, I think they are all "reasonable" requests, but of course each
> must be debated by the WG.
>
> I propose we start by tackling the bigger issues, and keep a few
> concurrent discussion threads going. Let's continue with TLM-1 and with
> issues around processes and events, since that discussion has kicked off
> already.

I'd like to know how many enhancements and errors/ambiguities to be
discussed and how to discuss them. Since we have only limited time to
discuss, it is efficient that the appropriate person makes proposals
for enhancements and errors.

>
> Re. TLM-1 I have made a tentative proposal. Stuart and Jerome are
> generally supportive, and there have been no negative comments. We have
> refined the spec to keep the namespace tlm for backward compatibility and
> to add two new namespaces tlm1 and tlm2. Can I take it that we have a
> consensus to go ahead and implement this proposal (it can still be tweaked
> as we go along). Any objections?

No objection. The existing TLM2 models must be compiled and run under
the new TLM2 headers.
About TLM-1 APIs, LRM should include their definitions and explanations
in the same definite descriptions as APIs of TLM2.

>
> Re. the process id / operator< issue, could I please have some more solid
> proposals?
>
> Also, let's try to reach a conclusion re. event and/or lists and named
> events.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John A

Best regards,
Hiroshi Imai
Chair of SystemC WG, JEITA

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