Re: [myhdl-list] Style based on decorators

[bedros <be...@ya...>]

I disagree with Matt, and agree with Jan.

This is still an experimental release (sub 1.0)
meaning major changes could happen. I think decorators
are brilliant idea; and make it look like a real HDL
rather than a hacked sequential language as in the old
style.

I would prefer to stay compatible with old style as
long it does not conflict with the new style; but
compatibality is not important.

I believe that the most important advantage with MyHDL
over other HDL's is the ability to express my designs
in the language in the least effort; and the ability
to read and understand the code without trying to
crack the cryptic ways of making it a parallel
language. Decorators simplify things and make coding
in MyHDL more elegant.

to me, MyHDL is to RTL design, is like what FPGA is to
ASIC. It's a way of getting something out quickly.
It's a fast way from concept to a cycle acurate model
of the concept; and run the design in simulation, to
verify the architecture; if things work well, I could
try toVerilog conversion; or replace parts of the
design with their equivalent verilog or VHDL by hand; 

In my work, we do everything in VHDL; I wonder if it's
possible to co-simulate VHDL and MyHDL via VHPI
interface; I don't need it right now, but probably in
a year; I'll try to figure it out.

keep the good work Jan.


-Bedros

--- Matt Ettus <ma...@et...> wrote:

> Jan Decaluwe wrote:
> > Hi:
> > 
> > I have decided to proceed with the introduction of
> decorators
> > to create local generators in 0.5.
> > 
> > In addition, I would like to make this the default
> coding style.
> > In particular, I would change all documentation
> and examples to
> > use decorators, including in tutorials. Note that
> 3 decorators
> > are introduced: @always, @always_comb, and
> @instance.
> > 
> > Also, the possibility to use a parametrizable
> generator directly
> > would be de-emphasized (but possible, of course).
> The equivalent
> > in VHDL/Verilog would be a process/always block
> with a port
> > interface, something which doesn't exist.
> Therefore, this
> > can be confusing to new users. Instead, one would
> use a function
> > that returns a single generator (as many of you do
> already).
> > This makes the overall style more consistent:
> structure is
> > always specified using a plain function, behavior
> using
> > a local generator (created with a decorator).
> > 
> > Note that all of this has no impact on backwards
> compatibility.
> > 
> > As always, let me know if you disagree.
> 
> I don't see the advantage of pushing everyone
> towards the decorators.
> Am I correct in my understanding that complex cases
> may still need the
> old syntax?
> 
> Also, I love Python and understand the desire to be
> Pythonic, but making
> things as different as possible from preexisting
> HDLs doesn't seem to
> buy anything but a steep learning curve.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do
> you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search
> engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the 
> web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> myhdl-list mailing list
> myh...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/myhdl-list
>