Subject: Re: Updated Implicit Ports Proposal
From: Clifford E. Cummings (cliffc@sunburst-design.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 12:24:54 PDT
At 05:53 PM 4/11/02 -0700, Kevin Cameron wrote:
>
>"Clifford E. Cummings" wrote:
>>This email message contains proposals to replace section 12.7 in its
>>entirety and some changes to the interface section.
>>
>>Please be ready to vote on this by Monday.
>>
>>Regards - Cliff
>>
>Couple of things:
>
> 1. The .<name> syntax isn't really "implicit" as it's just shorthand for
> .<name>(<name>) where
> the name is the same, which is (IMO) explicit. Can we drop "implicit"?
I called the .<name> syntax implicit for three reasons:
(1) Existing named port connects are already called explicit port connections.
(2) The connection is not entirely explicit since we are listing the port
name but not the connection name. It is implied that we expect both to be
the same and that a connection should be made between the two. Similarly,
positional port connections are not called explicit because we list the
name of the signal that will be connected to a port but the port that we
are connecting to is not explicitly named.
(3) Last week the issue was raised about different data types through the
.name and .* port connections. I added a five-paragraph section called
12.7.5 Compatible data types for implicit port connections to discuss which
data types are permitted across either implicit style. This new section
describes the legal and illegal port connection rules when using one of the
two new implicit connection styles (it was easier to reference the section
from the .<name> and .* sections than it was to outline all of the rules in
both sections).
If other committee members would prefer a different name other than
"implicit .name connections," I am open to discussion on this.
> 2. I'm not that keen on .* without module/interface prototyping and a
> mechanism for blocking
> inappropriate connection (e.g. 'local' preceding non-exportable
> signal delarations). So I'm
> probably voting "no" until that happens.
I have already sent another email in opposition to this amendment.
>Kev.
Regards - Cliff
//*****************************************************************//
// Cliff Cummings Phone: 503-641-8446 //
// Sunburst Design, Inc. FAX: 503-641-8486 //
// 14314 SW Allen Blvd. E-mail: cliffc@sunburst-design.com //
// PMB 501 Web: www.sunburst-design.com //
// Beaverton, OR 97005 //
// //
// Expert Verilog, Synthesis and Verification Training //
//*****************************************************************//
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 12:28:28 PDT