[ibis-macro] Re: Resolving a discrepancy
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:47:29 -0700
For the sake of language consistency,
should we then also change the sentence
on pg. 144:
"Note that if Init_Returns_Impulse is set to "False", then
Getwave_Exists MUST be set to "True"."
to
"Note that if GetWave_Exists is "False", Init_Returns_Impulse cannot be
set to "False""
Thanks,
Arpad
=========================
-----Original Message-----
From: Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:43 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Resolving a discrepancy
That's fine with me. Are you suggesting that we should replace
the sentence on pg. 145:
"If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True."
with the one you suggested?
"If GetWave_Exists is False, then Use_Init_Output cannot be False."
or are you suggesting this to be added somewhere in the spec
in addition to what is on pg. 145?
Thanks,
Arpad
===================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:37 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Resolving a discrepancy
Arpad,
I would like to say it a different (but equivalent way):
If GetWave_Exists is False, then Use_Init_Output cannot be False.
Walter
Walter Katz
303.449-2308
Mobile 720.333-1107
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
www.sisoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:29 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Resolving a discrepancy
I would like to get a resolution on a wording discrepancy that
was raised by Fngyi, I believe, in connection with the truth
table we circulated a little while ago. This doesn't change
the outcome, but it would most likely drive the parser
developer nuts...
We made a statement at some point that when GetWave doesn't
exist, we basically ignore the Use_Init_Output Boolean.
However, the current spec says on pg. 145 that:
"If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True."
This implies that when GetWave doesn't exist, Use_Init_Output
must be TRUE, but we just said that it is ignored, so why does
it have to be true?
Well, as far as I remember we also said that it is ignored
BECAUSE the only possibility we have when GetWave doesn't
exist is to take the output from the Init function, therefore
we don't care what the Use_Init_Output Boolean says we will
have to use the output of Init. This is the same as saying
that the Boolean must be TRUE.
I would suggest to change our wording and instead of saying
that Use_Init_Output is ignored, we should only say that it
must be true.
Are we all in agreement with that?
Thanks,
Arpad
==============================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
