Jump to content

Talk:Quasi-delay-insensitive circuit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

TODO

  • In formal synthesis, add and reference other production rule generation algorithms
  • In chips, add and reference a larger variety of QDI processors, and add descriptions to existing ones
  • More in-depth descriptions of each logic family
  • In syntax-directed translation, add reference to the tangram compiler
  • References and other approaches to verification
  • add a section for QDI gate and trasistor sizing (the optimal PN ratio for QDI is different than typical sizing)
I completed all of the previous TODO's and made sure to keep MOS:CAPS, I figured that the article is no longer a stub and that other issues have been resolved. Let me know if you think there are some things missing before this can happen. Ned Bingham (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but see MOS:CAPS and avoid capping things that are not proper names; i.e., it's weak condition half buffer (WCHB); or more likely weak-condition half buffer (WCHB). Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

I'm a PhD student in Rajit Manohar's research group, so my perspective on QDI circuits will primarily be framed within the sphere of influence of Alain Martin and his students at Cal-tech namely Rajit Manohar, Steven Burns, Tony Lee, Steven Nowick, and Andrew Lines. Other perspectives are greatly desired! Ned Bingham (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And note that Caltech does not need a hyphen. Alain is an old bud of mine. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual footnotes style

@Talon4196: May it worth to use more conventional, numeric style footnotes? Citations grouped by name feel very unconfortable... Somehow. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, go for it :) Ned Bingham (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]