On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ricky Teachey <ri...@teachey.org> wrote:
> This seems like a hurdle you're going to have trouble passing... especially
> given that all the functionality that is required can be provided using
> existing descriptor behavior. You will need to pretty concretely demonstrate
> why the special handling of signals in assignment (no matter which operator
> is the operator of choice) is something the language at large really needs,
> and why descriptors aren't sufficient.
Just a quick example, suppose you have a class A and class B
representing two circuit blocks, where in class C you want instantiate
A() and B() and connecting them together. Please do let me know if you
could have a more reasonable way of representation to make it working.
class A:
def __init__(self, output):
self.output = output
def process(self):
self.output = 5 # !!! this does not work for descriptors passed in
# self.c_self.signal = 5 # this might work, but what the heck really?!
class C:
signal = Signal()
def __init__(self):
a = A(output=self.signal)
# a = A(output=self) # it is only possible for signal to work
if you pass C's self into a ...
b = B(input=self.signal)
# !!! This does not work !!!
Instead, a much more natural way of doing it is:
class A:
def __init__(self, output):
self.output = output
def process(self):
self.output <== 5 # this always works!
class C:
def __init__(self):
signal = Signal()
a = A(output=signal)
b = B(input=signal) # this feels much better, isn't it?
> And to be honest, working with a SignalDescriptor class seems like the most
> explicit and readable approach anyway, given that your stated first
> preference is to customize/"overload" the assignment operator. Python already
> provides nearly the exact syntax you want, you are just limited to confining
> it to your own Signal and SignalDescriptor objects.
If one thing PEP465 ever taught me is that readability really matters
a lot. Having a identical python object structure mapping to the
hardware structure, with proper localized values as it is in HDL, here
is an example in verilog instantiating 3 flip-flops, one outputs
connect the next input, it is really reflecting how engineers are
thinking in hardware description. If you could tell me a way to
implement something as elegant as below of cause I'd be happy and just
use it. It doesn't make sense to create a new HDL which is even less
intuitive and more difficult to use and understand ...
// D flip-flop
module dff(
input wire d,
input wire clk,
output reg q,
output reg q_bar
);
/*
input d, clk;
output q, q_bar;
wire d, clk;
reg q, q_bar;
*/
wire qx, qbx;
always @ (posedge clk)
begin
q <= d;
q_bar <= !d;
end
endmodule
module dff_tb();
// skipped signal stimuli part ...
reg d, clk, test;
wire q0, q0_bar,q1,q1_bar,q2,q2_bar;
dff d1(d, clk, q0, q0_bar);
dff d2(q0, clk, q1, q1_bar);
dff d3(q1, clk, q2, q2_bar);
endmodule
> Comparing this idea to adding a matrix operator: in the latter case, even if
> you created a Matrix class and customized __mul__ behavior, there were still
> two competing definitions for how multiplication can occur. So that couldn't
> be solved through customized classes. In this current case, the problem CAN
> be solved by pairing a customized Signal and SignalDescriptor. Unless you can
> demonstrate exactly why that this isn't a workable solution, I think you can
> expect it to be very difficult to get the buy-in you need.
I think the above example self-explains the situation. Do let me know
if you think otherwise.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
