From: Steven Sharp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 15:37:11 PDT
>But I don't think any of this IS specified by the LRM.
>It does not say anywhere that primitives have internal nets.
>Primitives are equally thought of as abstract entities,
>and I can implement it equally as a lookup table without going through
I agree that the LRM does not specify that primitive terminal
connections work like port connections (and they actually behave
differently in one visible way, which is also not specified).
However, if we do not assume that they work like port connections,
then the LRM does not specify how they work at all.
In practice, it is clear that they must work pretty much like port
connections. You can write
not inv(o, a & b);
What does it mean to attach an expression to a terminal, if not the
same thing as for a port? Something has to evaluate that expression
and must do it combinationally, and there is nothing in the definition
of a not-gate that will do so.
>Anyway, can we have some specific new wording to vote on?
We need to agree on the behavior before proposing wording. I am opposed
to specifying that primitives unconditionally evaluate at time zero. In
some situations, this would be incorrect. The rest of the time, it is
just unnecessary, based on the assumption that terminal connections work
like port connections. If you don't agree that the LRM is clear enough
on that, then some additional wording may be needed there also.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 15:14:11 PDT
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.