On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 8:28 PM Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > On 5/24/2019 4:25 PM, Yanghao Hua wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:45 PM Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > >> What I understand is that you are doing discrete-time hardware > >> simulation and that you need a operator that will schedule future > >> assigments to int-like objects. Have you considered using '@' to do > >> that? int @ int-expression is currently invalid, so defining it will > >> not interfere with other int operations. What am I not understanding? > > > > I am not sure if I understood this. The intention is to e.g. assign a > > signal with a value in a nature way, e.g. signal <== 5, are you saying > > to replace <== with @? > > That is what i meant, but reading > > > I really really would like either a equal sign > > suggests '@=' as a better alternative. (I am not sure if the > implementation would be equally easy or hard.) How does 'signal @= 5' look? > > Either is pragmatic in that these exist since a few versions ago, and > cannot interfere with existing integer expressions, rather than in the > far very hypothetical future. > > > not really intuitive though > > '@' means 'at' and you want to make the assignment 'at the next time > mark' (or whatever you call it). This is more intuitive to me than > seeing '@' as 'matrix-multiply' because 'matrix' contains 'at'. > > When we added @, it was known and intended that it could serve other > then unknown uses.
@= has all the same issues like <<= or >>=, in that you are basically sacrificing a well known number operation and force it to mean something completely different. In previous examples I have shown that HDLs are basically handling numbers, so <<=, >>=, |=, &=, +=, -=, %=, *=, <<, >> all could be, and should be used directly to signals. I admit this (@=) is a much rarer case, but why do we want to exclude the possibility for a matrix of signals to multiply another matrix of signals and assign the result to another matrix of signals? how does this look like? X @= (X @ Y), where @= means signal assignment, and X @= Y, does it mean signal assignment of Y to X, or does it mean X = X @ Y? This simply causes a lot of confusions. I want a solution that is impossible to cause any confusions. As @ and @= is built in python, any one could be using it in all possible ways that is beyond our imagine ... unless I have a way to make sure user cannot use @= as matrix multiplication (which obviously I cannot), otherwise I am very much de-motivated to use it to mean HDL signal assigns ... _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
