X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:21:04 -0400
Message-Id: <201509091721.t89HL4iS020376@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1509091133300.2682@lichen> (message from Roland
	Lutz on Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:45:50 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] New experimental netlist features
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509031356150 DOT 13201 AT nimbus>,<msi77b$6rr$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>,<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509082036590 DOT 3066 AT lichen> <20150908233235 DOT b6cde3ec6c40bf235a7a1df8 AT gmail DOT com>,<201509082144 DOT t88LiOXW007712 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <DUB125-W30B605E4BCBF749E33087DC6530 AT phx DOT gbl>
 <201509082355 DOT t88NtdSM012317 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509091133300 DOT 2682 AT lichen>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> Do you have any suggestion for a less ambiguous syntax?

We resolve ambiguity by documenting what we expect.

The question is, which syntax makes the most sense for us - what would
present the "least surprise" to the user?

I think in this case, choosing between:

* Pascal
* Ada
* An obscure GCC extension[*]
* Verilog

Verilog is the obvious choice here, because it's a modern, relevent
(to us), and commonly used language.  For projects with both layout
and fpga it would be "natural" to use the same bus syntax for both
cases.

We can then document *extensions* to this syntax if we need to, for
example "lists of signals" might require a comma-separated list like
"netname=nWR,nRD,nCS,A[15:0],D[8:0]".


[*] I'm a gcc maintainer and even I keep forgetting it's there ;-)