Subject: Re: Proposal Rob_P1, => Rob_P2
From: Rob Anderson (rob@reawebtech.com)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 09:52:11 PDT
David, Great!
I'd like to see it in there, we should have "proposed", "seconded",
"approved [by Pilot] for inclusion" for the status. It is not clear
how Peter handles status.
If it is "approved" by the
pilot group, I put it in the updated package. BTW with our pilot
group I am working as if it needs to be unanimous or "no objections"
then I count it as "approved". We don't have enough people to
do a majority vote. (Is that fair, Alex?)
David Bishop wrote:
> This is a neat format! I will add this to our web pages
> if nobody objects.
>
> http://www.eda.org/vhdl-std-logic/proposals/proposals.txt
> http://www.eda.org/vhdl-std-logic/proposals/
>
> Rob Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, I would very much like to hear their direction.
>>>The last post to their SIG (before the latest flurry of
>>>e-mails) was Febuary 24th.
>>>
>>>
>>Here are their proposals,
>>
>>CP-001
>>Proposed Uncomment xnor operators
>>
>>CP-002
>>Proposed Add shift operators for vector types
>>
>>CP-003
>>Proposed Add array/scalar logical operators
>>
>>CP-004
>>Proposed Add capacitive drive strength
>>
>>CP-005
>>Proposed Make vector result subtypes same as 1076 operators
>>
>>CP-006
>>Proposed Add logical reduction operations/operators
>>
>>CP-007
>>Proposed Provide text I/O package for standard logic
>>
>>CP-008
>>Proposed Provide formatted I/O with selection of radix
>>
>>CP-009
>>Proposed Provide 'image attribute
>>
>>We should have a hypertext list like that.
>>
>>Based on this, we should not put in the std_logic_[u]vector
>>versions of logic reduction operators, text io, array/scalar logic
>>operators. Or our package could conflict with theirs.
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 06 2002 - 09:51:02 PDT