From: Stefen Boyd (stefen@boyd.com)
Date: Thu Nov 19 1998 - 09:18:15 PST
At 07:19 PM 11/18/98 -0800, Michael McNamara wrote:
>So, you like the behavior of '+:', but would rather call it '::', and
>see no reason to give the user the ability to do '-:'
<p>BAD MSG:
>
orta... '+:' goes from lowbit to high bit. '::' goes from left to
right.
wire [7:0] green;
wire [0:7] blue;
X-Lines: 36
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 701
X-Status: $$$$
X-UID: 0000000731
Status: RO
green[3+:2] == green[4:3];
blue[3+:2] == blue[3:4];
but with '::'
green[3::2] == green[3:2];
blue[3::2] == blue[3:4];
<p><p>>I think we all agree that the *&*!@ tool should figure out endiness
>and deal with it.
I just want to go for something that is the most
intuitive to the user. The idea that [8+:2] might
have the 8 in the second part of the select [x:8]
feels backwards.
My only hesitation with '::' is that Verilog-2010
might want to use '::' to access static members of
a class...
Stefen
<p>--------------------
Stefen Boyd
__
| \ ____
|_/_ |
| \ |__
|___/oyd |
|___nterprises
stefen@boyd.com
(408)739-BOYD
(408)481-9658 (fax)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:53:02 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.