Subject: Fw: Comments for LRM Draft D5
From: Stephen Bailey (Stephen.Bailey@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 16:29:43 PST
Members of the working group and balloters of 1076-2002 D5,
We received some comments on the D5 draft, all of which Paul and I consider
to be editorial in nature. Most of the comments reflected a problem with
the generated PDF not containing the correct character literals (for type
CHARACTER, etc.) even though the Frame source indicates the correct
characters are used. Below, you will find a complete list of the comments.
Paul has recommended that we do not change D5 for submittal to RevCom.
RevCom requires the submittal package to include the last balloted version
of the draft. Therefore, if we change the draft to incorporate these
changes, then we would need to recirculate. Paul further recommends that
these changes be addressed in the final editing of the standard for
publication.
I apologize for not sending this email earlier. However, if you have any
concern with our plan for addressing these comments, please let me know
ASAP.
> Here are the comments from the recirculation (you've seen Lance's already,
> but reproduced here for completeness). Hopefully, all of these will be
> considered typographical/editorial and not require recirculation. If you
> think any of them would require recirculation, I suggest we try to find a
> way to not make that change.
>
> Timothy McBrayer:
>
> 1. Page 61 (Clause 4), Notes 3 and 4.
> Notes 3 and 4 are run into a single paragraph. This is the same
> recommendation I made on my D4 ballot. It was marked as adopted, yet the
> change does not appear in the D5 draft.
>
> 2. Page 62, process PROC2 of the example.
> There is a typo of a comma instead of a period. Counter,Get(V);
> This is one half of my recommendation 3 on my D4 ballot. The instance of
> Counter,Get(V) was changed to a period in process PROC1 for D5, but not in
> process PROC2.
>
> Lance Thompson's comment 4: "pg 62, "PROC2: process : Counter,Get(V);
should
> be "Counter.Get(V);"
>
> 3. Page 209, Section 14.2:
> Literals at positions 215, 222 and 254 have not been corrected as
suggested.
> (From Ashenden's D4 comment 4.)
>
> Lance Thompson's comment 9: "pg 209, line 1: The last character of the
line
> probably shouldn't be '5' it should be the multiplication sign ('x')". I
> believe this is position 215.
>
> 4. Page 199, Section 14:
> Christen D4 response #5 has not been corrected in D5. "Restriction:" is
> still misaligned for S'TRANSACTION.
>
> Lance's Other Comments:
>
> 1. pg 58, line 1:
> The indent of "An implicit signal ..." should match the indent of the
lines
> at the bottom of page 57.
>
> 2. pg 58, line 1:
> (Relatedly) "... (see 9.1)In addition ..." "In addition ..." should
start
> a new, normal paragraph.
>
> 3. pg 59, clause 4.3.1.2, 3rd paragraph, 4th line:
> "... (or guards).When a given ..." requires spacing between the sentences.
>
> 4. (Covered above)
>
> 5. pg 66, NOTES:
> "2-Since shared variables ..." should start a new line.
>
> 6. pg 90, Note 1, line 3:
> "2-Since disconnection specification ..." should start a new line.
>
> 7. pg 184:
> The broken bar symbol did not appear in "f) Other special characters." It
> also did not appear in note 4.
>
> 8. pg 208:
> The broken bar symbol did not appear in the declaration of type character.
>
> 10. pg 231, physical_type_definition:
> "base_unit_declaration" should be replaced with "primary_unit_declaration"
-Steve Bailey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 16:26:39 PST