Talk:Quasi-delay-insensitive circuit

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]