RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [vhdl-200x] RE: Modular types

From: <whygee@f-cpu.org>
Date: Sat Aug 02 2014 - 02:43:42 PDT
Le 2014-08-01 20:18, Jones, Andy D a écrit :
> Rather than focusing on extending the language to support a specific
> point-need (a new type), why not focus on extensions to the language
> that make not only that point-need, but also other similar needs,
> easily handled without further changes to the language?

I don't know what it implies for VHDL implementors but in the end,
this would help reduce the amount of work for future language revisions
since people would be able to experiment and play, and even actually
use the features that they need for their job, without interfering with
VHDL's philosophy or core principles. I like it :-)

> If we define the modular resolved subtype itself within that generic
> modular package, then declaring a signal of all these resolved
> subtypes is as simple as:
> 
> Signal my_mod4 : ieee.std_modulo(modulus => 4).modular;
> Signal my_mod1_5 : ieee.std_nonnormal_modulo(1, 5).modular;
> Signal my_sat4 : ieee.std_saturated(4).saturated;
> Signal my_sat_1_5 : ieee.std_nonnormal_saturated(1, 5).saturated;

The idea that we won't have to discuss endlessly to get the features
we need, when we need, through a collection of customisable packages,
is very exciting :-)

> Andy D Jones
yg

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Sat Aug 2 02:44:06 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 02 2014 - 02:45:07 PDT