RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 5

John,

I also agree with revisiting the annex D.

Thanks,

Jerome

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya; David C Black
Cc: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 5

David, Bishnupriya,

Regarding effort, I already have such a list. It just requires a little tidying up and checking. It will not impact any other part of the work.

John A

From:

Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>

To:

"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>, "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>

Date:

27/04/2011 16:17

Subject:

RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 5

Sent by:

owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org

________________________________

John,

I agree the existing Annex D should be removed. Replacing that with a diff between the previous LRM version and this version is more relevant, but falls in the nice-to-have category in my mind - to be assigned time only in the absence of other higher priority items.

Thanks,
-Bishnupriya

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:00 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Re: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 5

All,

One more thing. I had said previously to the Working Group that I intended to revisit Annex D at this stage.

The existing Annex D lists the changes between SystemC version 2.0.1 and 2.1, and between version 2.1 and IEEE-2005. My proposal is to remove these two lists at this time since they are rather historic, and to replace them with a new list of changes between IEEE 1666-2005 and 1666-2011.

Does that sound like a good idea?

Thanks,

John A

TAF!

--
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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
--
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.