Re: [myhdl-list] MEP 107 assessment

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

On 6/8/2012 10:28 AM, Tom Dillon wrote:
> First let me say, I don't know much about the code that does the
> conversion but let me throw something out here.
>
> What if we limited ourselves to using a class to define the containers?
> Once in a class, could we not push off some of the conversion complexity
> to methods in the class. Basically, have some hooks in conversion that
> would allow the class to be queried about the conversion details.
>
> I know it is not done that way now and we are trying to make conversion
> sort of invisible to the user but this might allow more complex signal
> containers without adding to the complexity of conversion.
>

I think we have definitely narrowed the scope, that Signal Container 
will be reserved to attributes (at least in the near-term).  The 
conversion of attributes is more reasonable with the resources we have.

Jan D. also mentioned, he would like the idea of attribute referencing, 
tips&tricks, discussed in depth, white-paper, before deciding if 
attribute signal containers should be implemented (doesn't stop anyone 
from working on the attribute conversion).  Such a discussion should 
expose the "use-cases" people have used or naturally attempt.

I summarized my thoughts as on attribute referencing as,

The Good (or the pretty)
   1. Supported today, as others stated
   2. Deep containers
   3. Many generators low number of references

The Bad (or the ugly)
   2. Shallow containers many attributes
   3. Managing local reference names space redundant
      (many containers in the interface)


Regards,
Chris Felton