RE: TLM issues

Jerome, Bart, All,

Okay. I propose that for the generic case, we use the term "SystemC, TLM-1
and TLM-2.0 class libraries" i.e. in clauses 1.1, 1.2, and 4.1.2,

For specific section headings i.e. clause 10 through to clause 17 we
retain the term "TLM-2.0".

Clause 18 will still refer to "TLM-1".

Does that work for you?

John A

From:
Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>,
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
11/01/2011 13:56
Subject:
RE: TLM issues

 
 
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [
mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of
john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:22 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: TLM issues

Bart writes: 1.2, 1.3 (and other sections): you refer to ?SystemC and
TLM-2.0 class libraries? although we also standardize TLM-1.0, so maybe
leave out the version (we do the same for SystemC itself anyway)

[JA] I am reluctant to change from "TLM-2.0" to "TLM", because "TLM" is a
generic term and this is a specific standard. With SystemC, on the other
hand, the term "SystemC" is obviously already specific to SystemC.

Opinions?

 
I agree with Bart on the remark. Now, regarding the remedy there are
multiple solutions.
Maybe ?TLM Library? or ?SystemC TLM Library? would avoid the confusion
with the generic term.
Else, there is always the possibility to replace TLM-2.0 by ?TLM-2.0 and
TLM-1.0?.
 
Regards,
 
Jerome
 

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