X
Xiangyu Yang
(I may start a new thread. )
An interest thing.
In your RHDL you have to use .assign or .<< to do signal assignment,
annoying thing also in my code for HW CPU model.
In ruby, the "=" will assign other *object* to a *variable*, and can't
(and shouldn't) be overrided. There are no simple way to modify the
state of an *object* referenced by a *variable*. Using .assign or
overriding other operators to do this job are both ugly. I notice that
someone suggested ":=" operator which can be overrided. I dream of it
all the days
. If I have ":=", I'm sure that my CPU model will save
at least half of the current lines and the program will be much more
natural and clearer.
In short, when you use ruby to model some objects, the ability to
assign/modify the *object* state/value in simple expression way is very
useful. It provides the possibility of running ruby code *directly* to
model other worlds.
gabriele said:If you're working with hardware check out
http://www.aracnet.com/~ptkwt/ruby_stuff/RHDL/
Ruby Hardware Description Language
An interest thing.
In your RHDL you have to use .assign or .<< to do signal assignment,
annoying thing also in my code for HW CPU model.
In ruby, the "=" will assign other *object* to a *variable*, and can't
(and shouldn't) be overrided. There are no simple way to modify the
state of an *object* referenced by a *variable*. Using .assign or
overriding other operators to do this job are both ugly. I notice that
someone suggested ":=" operator which can be overrided. I dream of it
all the days
. If I have ":=", I'm sure that my CPU model will saveat least half of the current lines and the program will be much more
natural and clearer.
In short, when you use ruby to model some objects, the ability to
assign/modify the *object* state/value in simple expression way is very
useful. It provides the possibility of running ruby code *directly* to
model other worlds.