RE: [vhdl-200x] Clocked Shorthand Proposal - Need Consensus

From: <>
Date: Thu Mar 27 2014 - 10:53:40 PDT
I've been meaning to work on this proposal and add my preferences and arguments.  I'll summarize here.

I GREATLY prefer syntax 1b.  What does the @ mean?  Where else is it used in VHDL?  Why are we introducing and reserving a new symbol/operator?  Especially when we already have a reserved keyword "after" whose semantics are exactly what we're trying to add (or at least obvious in context).  It would be fun to add a new physical constant "cycles" or something.  But I assume we won't add that (a) because of English's singular/plural issues, e.g. "after 1 cycles", and (b) because I've heard that compilers have fits if you try to shadow a physical type.  Someone told me once, "Just try to name a signal 'ns' and see what happens!"

In changing an existing, established, mature language like VHDL, I like to make changes as much as possible (1) limited, (2) obvious, and (3) consistent.  Perhaps the '@' symbol would make Verilog people happy.  But as a VHDL user, I find it neither obvious nor consistent (see my first paragraph).  On the other hand, I think 'after' is fairly obvious and consistent.  In fact, the consistency helps make it more obvious.

Now you have my opinion. :-)

- Ryan

From: [] On Behalf Of Daniel Kho
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:45 AM
Subject: [vhdl-200x] Clocked Shorthand Proposal - Need Consensus

For the ClockedShorthand<> proposal, it seems that Syntax 1 was generally accepted by most people during previous discussions.
However, Syntax 1 proposed two different syntaxes which serve the same purpose:
Syntax 1a:
q <= d @ 2;
Syntax 1b:
q <= d after 2;
where '2' indicates the number of cycles to delay d before effectively driving q.

I would like to seek your comments on which of the two syntaxes is more favourable, and why?
Or does anyone think that both syntaxes should be supported?

regards, daniel

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<>, and is
believed to be clean.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Mar 27 10:53:54 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 27 2014 - 10:53:59 PDT