Re: [myhdl-list] Conversion of class methods

[Christopher F. <chr...@gm...>]

<snip>
>>>
>>> As for your other questions, I find it a bit weird that the "signal
>>> containers" MEP refers to "classes" as well. I don't think that
>>> classes are normally considered containers even if strictly speaking
>>> they are. Perhaps it is because they are so much more than that...
>>> So my 0.02$ is that that part should be rolled into the MEP 108.
>>
>> What united the classes and other containers, in my mind, is how a
>> Signal and numeric values embedded in a "container" is transformed.
>> You are correct, a class can be a super set but it is also
>> container.  The MEP only covers the container part of the class, that
>> is Signals, constants, and variables (?) as class attributes.
>
> Well, I think we should support classes, in the end, list and signals
> are also classes, and I think we shouldn't restrict cases like defining
> a custom container class. I think the problem here is how to access
> its members (index or attributes), I mean in the implementation.

I created a stackoverflow question, http://bit.ly/wxCQqA,  for this. 
AFAIK it is possible in both cases.

>
> However, following the idea of "baby steps", I agree on starting only
> with lists and dicts. Also, note that in this objects, the access to its
> members is done by indexing.
>

Classes can be accessed via the __dict__ or through attributes (which 
the attributes translates to the __dict__).  Classes could be handled 
the same as a dict, resolving the path (ast tree) between the attribute 
node and the name node.  In MEP-108 is a proposed translation rule from 
"container" to flat netlist.

The current proposed plan is:

MEP-108 conversion of class methods.  This only addresses the "self" 
port and the _extractHierarchy.  The class method with generators would 
have the same ability as the current functions with generators.

MEP-107 signal containers.  This addresses when a signal is embedded in 
a dict, class, or heterogeneous list (homogeneous lists currently 
supported).  These are grouped together (in my mind they are related), 
and the same "rule" would be applied for converting the hierarchical 
structures to a flat netlist.

Once both MEPS are implemented common support of classes would be 
enabled.  MEP-108 is the more straight-forward and was the intended 
first to be implemented, MEP-107 more involved, more conversation 
required.

Thanks for the comments!
Chris