Subject: Re: Update on LRM Revisions
From: Paul J. Menchini (mench@mench.com)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 13:13:56 PDT
John,
> To second Bhasker's point, this sounds like it could create problems
> if there are two distinct VHDL 1076-2000 like specifications with
> distinct content. In the interest of maximizing clarity, could we
> perhaps call the D5 "VHDL 1076-2001"?
One of the editoral changes requested was the designation of this draft.
And, the final product will have the date code of either 2001 or later,
for that is when RevCom will approve it. So, I think the potential for
long-term confusion is small.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 13:17:52 PDT