[ibis-editorial] Re: FW: Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for Review
- From: "Bob Ross" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:22:20 -0700
All:
As an editorial correction, we can plan to replace "clock_ticks" with "clock
times".
We might change some clock_times to clock times in another version.
Bob
From: radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 5:06 PM
To: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: mike@xxxxxxxxxxx; curtis.clark@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FW: [ibis-editorial] Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for
Review
Hi Bob,
Arpad's suggestion seems reasonable (clock times - without the underscore -
is self-explanatory). The other option is to use "clock_times", consistent
with the AMI_GetWave arguments. Otherwise, "clock_ticks" would need to be
explained.
Radek
From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:54 PM
To: BIERNACKI,RADEK (A-Sonoma,ex1); RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1);
ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mike LaBonte; Curtis Clark
Subject: FW: FW: [ibis-editorial] Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for
Review
Radek:
I do not know if you are on the Editorial reflector, but here
is some discussion on terminology within the repeater
section. So you see any issue with Arpad's suggestion?
Bob
From: Curtis Clark [mailto:curtis.clark@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:42 PM
To: Bob Ross; Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: Mike LaBonte
Subject: Re: FW: [ibis-editorial] Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for
Review
Hi Bob (and Mike and Arpad),
I agree with everything Arpad said.
In section 10.2, they also use the term "clock ticks" as the values being
represented by clock times and returned in the vector clock_times. ;-)
Maybe that's where this "clock_ticks" confusion started, but Arpad's
solution covers all the bases. I think you could make an argument for
replacing "clock_ticks" with "clock ticks", "clock times", or "clock_times"
(anything but "clock_ticks" is good ;-).
Curtis
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Curtis:
Here is a response from Arpad.
What do you think?
Bob
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:57 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for Review
Bob,
Strictly speaking we have a general language consistency problem here.
We have some unwritten rules along the lines that when we refer to a
parameter or function argument name, we spell it the way it is spelled,
but when we talk about values in that, we spell it as we would in normal
English. But we don't follow the rules everywhere.
"clock_ticks" occurs only twice on the pages Curtis mentioned.
"clock_times" occurs all over in the spec, but not always used correctly.
Many of these occurrences could/should be spelled "clock times". In some
areas I am not sure which spelling would be more appropriate.
Since we do not have a parameter or argument called "clock_ticks" I would
suggest to change these two occurrences to "clock times" (no underscore).
I would stay away from revisiting all the "clock_times" occurrences and
correct them for this version of the spec.
Thanks,
Arpad
===========================================================================
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 5:42 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for Review
Editorial Committee:
Is this a problem that needs fixing?
Bob
From: Curtis Clark [mailto:curtis.clark@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:02 PM
To: Bob Ross; Mike LaBonte
Subject: Re: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for Review
Hi Bob,
I think I've noticed something in this version that we missed during review
of the "Repeater" stuff.
In section 10.6 Repeaters, we use the term "clock_ticks" (pages 222, 223).
(ex. ...AMI_GetWave function shall return clock_ticks.).
However, the AMI section 10.2 does not use this term. The argument to
AMI_GetWave is clock_times, and the discussion talks about clock ticks being
returned in clock_times.
Thanks,
Curtis
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All:
Based on comments at the August 30, 2013 IBIS Telecom
meeting, Ver6.0-wip3 is posted under
http://www.eda.org/ibis/ver6.0_wip/
The changes are:
Fixing the Required and Default Column in Table 27 (and Table 30)
for Repeater_Type
Fixing the indentations on pages 99, 100, 119, 120
For the .pdf version, adding bookmarks for the Table of Contents.
Unless there are more changes, wip3 is the version to review for the
ratification vote on September 20.
Send any comments to me, Mike LaBonte or the Editorial Committee.
Bob
--
Bob Ross
Teraspeed Consulting Group, LCC
http://www.teraspeed.com
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct : 503-246-8048
Teraspeed Labs: 971-279-5325
Headquarters: 401-284-1827
Teraspeed is a registered service mark of Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, e-mail mikelabonte@xxxxxxxxxxxx
|or ibis-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|IBIS reflector archives exist under:
|
| http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email_archive/ Recent
| http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/users_archive/ Recent
| http://www.eda-stds.org/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-editorial] Re: FW: Re: FW: [IBIS] IBIS Version 6.0 WIP3 for Review - Bob Ross
