Re: Signed, Unsigned syntax issues. Please help, I'm stumped

"rickman" <gnuarm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:bdf4e73d-f1d1-460d-a92c-be0518f01f56@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jun 13, 10:35 pm, "KJ" <kkjenni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "rickman" <gnu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:37c87ac4-768f-405f-a262-fe3e4dd0c51b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>> would always cause someone to say, well does that mean
>> this <= that
>> or
>> that <= this?
>>
>> whereas
>> set (this "<=" that);
>> would be more clear...at the expense of more typing....for a parameter 
>> that
>> doesn't functionally contribute anything...I can hear the moans and 
>> groans
>> already, but you can make your homegrowns your way, I'll make 'em mine.
>
> Personally, I think set (this, that) is just fine.  It is a strange
> construct to begin with.  But once someone learns about it, it is very
> easy to remember that the order is the same as in an assignment.  No
> confusion there.

But you would also have to admit that the learning curve upon first seeing

set(this, "<=", that) is lower (hopefully non-existent) than it is for 
set(this,that) since the "<=" parameter makes it plainly obvious which is 
the target of the assignment (although one can certainly quibble about the

name, maybe 'copy' would be better than 'set').

So now you get into the tradeoff between productivity gained while banging

in the code (if you don't have to type in the "<=" every time you use it) 
versus productivity lost (from having to go back to refresh your noggin on

which is the target if you don't use this on a daily basis) in later 
sup****ting the code.  While you're focusing right now on the code entry 
hassles, remember that effort only gets done once, but you (or someone
else) 
will have to look at it more than once and not always while it's still
fresh 
in your mind, maybe years later...or perhaps by someone else who has to 
sup****t your design after you move on....then again, maybe the obscure 
approach is better from a future sup****t contracting perspective....after 
all, that's partly why suppliers generate obtuse code for 'wizard'
generated 
widgets to make it at least a bit of a pain to go back and 
rework/modify/extend it.

Anyway, I just tossed this procedure one out as an idea and admitted it is

klunky, but certainly less so than the 15D/15X prefix thing.

We're certainly off on a tangent from your original query.  You can always

submit an enhancement request in to the VHDL gods.  I don't have the link 
handy but if you Google for Accelera and VHDL enhancements you can
probably 
find the link, Jim Lewis' posts sometimes have it since he is part of that

group.  I submitted a couple that got accepted...although I'm not sure 
when/if they ever will/did make it into the new standard.

Kevin Jennings