| Number | 266
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | 4.1.14: replication operator
|
| State | closed
|
| Class | duplicate
|
| Arrival-Date | Jan 17 2003
|
| Originator | Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
|
| Release | 2001b: 4.1.14
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
In 4.1.14, if it alreadys bothers to say that the replication number shall be "a non-zero, non-X and non-Z constant expression", then shouldn't it at least say "positive" instead of non-zero? |
| Fix |
|
| Audit-Trail |
From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/266: 4.1.14: replication operator Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:28:27 -0500 (EST) >In 4.1.14, if it alreadys bothers to say that the replication number shall be >"a non-zero, non-X and non-Z constant expression", then shouldn't it at least >say "positive" instead of non-zero? I agree. Negative is even worse than zero. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com From: Dennis Marsa <drm@xilinx.com> To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/266: 4.1.14: replication operator Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:41:40 -0700 Steven Sharp wrote: > >In 4.1.14, if it alreadys bothers to say that the replication number shall be > >"a non-zero, non-X and non-Z constant expression", then shouldn't it at least > >say "positive" instead of non-zero? > > I agree. Negative is even worse than zero. > > Steven Sharp > sharp@cadence.com > Isn't this issue covered by #76 which is currently under email vote? The proposal for #76 includes the change of "non-zero" to "positive". Dennis From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/266: 4.1.14: replication operator Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:48:54 -0500 (EST) >Isn't this issue covered by #76 which is currently under >email vote? The proposal for #76 includes the change >of "non-zero" to "positive". Looks like it. Maybe this means that Shalom is starting to run out of new problems :-) Or maybe it means that we need to get these passed so he can stop seeing the same ones again. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/266: 4.1.14: replication operator Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 21:11:18 +0200 (IST) Yeah, maybe I can use senility to get out of my Army reserve duty? The worst part is, like Dennis said, we just looked at this a couple of days ago. Stephen, please close this issue as a duplicate. Thanks. > >Isn't this issue covered by #76 which is currently under > >email vote? The proposal for #76 includes the change > >of "non-zero" to "positive". > > Looks like it. Maybe this means that Shalom is starting to run out of > new problems :-) Or maybe it means that we need to get these passed > so he can stop seeing the same ones again. |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology