| Number | 180
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | 14.3.2: "s ' x" should be "s -> x"
|
| State | lrmdraft
|
| Class | errata-simple
|
| Arrival-Date | Oct 29 2002
|
| Originator | Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
|
| Release | 2001b: 14.3.2
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
In 14.3.2, 2nd para., items (a) and (b), before Table 48: "a) Transition from a known state s to x: s ' x b) Transition from x to a known state s: x ' s" Should that be s -> x and x -> s ? |
| Fix |
In 14.3.2, 2nd para., items (a) and (b), before Table 48, change "s ' x" to "s -> x" and change "x ' s" to "x -> s" |
| Audit-Trail |
From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: Re: errata/180: 14.3.2: "s ' x" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:08:55 -0800 >Category: errata >Confidential: no >Originator: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> >Release: 2001b >Class: TBD >Description: I agree that the intent here was -- s -> x x -> s and we should change that. But why does the LRM use the "->" event trigger syntax here and many, many other places in the document instead of an arrow? -- Brad From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/180: 14.3.2: "s ' x" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:32:42 +0200 > But why does the LRM use the "->" event > trigger syntax here and many, many other > places in the document instead of an arrow? It is not syntax here. It is just indicating a transition from one state to another. It is easier to type -> than a special arrow character. I could convert all these to arrow characters in FrameMaker. Is it worth the trouble? From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: Re: errata/180: PROPOSAL Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:07:37 -0800 In 14.3.2, 2nd para., items (a) and (b), before Table 48, change "s ' x" to "s -> x" and change "x ' s" to "x -> s" |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology