RE: Verilog-AMS Committee Call - 12th May 2011

Hi,

I went over Chapter 2.

I don't have any technical comments.

I do have two editorial comments:

1. If the idea is to merge V-AMS into SV, shouldn't the 1800-2009 LRM be taken as the base? I found a number of differences between the text in this document and that in 1800-2009. I am not referring to V-AMS additions. Just one example: in the list of lexical tokens in 2.2, this document has "String", whereas 1800-2009 has "String literal". There are a number of other differences thoughout the document. These all seemed minor, but I don't see a reason for it.

2. Instead of repeating large parts of the LRM, like this section, where more than 90% is no different than SV-2009, wouldn't it be simpler to just describe those aspects that are different from SV-2009? Somewhat like how the SV-2005 document tool 1364-2005 as a base, and mostly described the additions to and differences from 1364-2005.

> * Review of Chapter 2 - Lexical conventions. Document can be found at:
> http://www.eda.org/twiki/bin/view.cgi/VerilogAMS/SVAMSSectionWork#2_Lex
> ical_conventions

Regards,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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