Subject: Re: Updated Implicit Ports Proposal
From: Clifford E. Cummings (cliffc@sunburst-design.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 12:29:10 PDT
Apologies -
I meant to send this to the whole group.
Regards - Cliff
>X-Sender: cliffc@mail.sunburst-design.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:24:54 -0700
>To: Kevin Cameron <Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com>
>From: "Clifford E. Cummings" <cliffc@sunburst-design.com>
>Subject: Re: Updated Implicit Ports Proposal
>Cc: "Clifford E. Cummings" <cliffc@sunburst-design.com>, vlog-pp@eda.org
>
>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 - 12:30:59 PDT