X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	ham02.websitewelcome.com
X-Spam-Flag2999:	NO
X-Spam-Level2999:
X-Spam-Status2999:	"No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gibibit.com;
	h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BWhitelist:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir:X-Source-Sender:X-Source-Auth:X-Email-Count:X-Source-Cap;
	b=bUabd/2sY4df76Z1lEiWLyO5S9gFShKuk96K66cGE72QtjrBktCj7iJAlebZyJInJCb8V7i478QcG5j9M5QlQNB8nRpds8kbOH1RGmrWXpIrx+5uXL7aJ01ulbrNvtXg;
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:53:31 -0800
From:	Colin D Bennett <colin AT gibibit DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] verilog question - blocking/non-blocking
Message-ID:	<20120220165331.281f72d0@svelte>
In-Reply-To:	<1329784073.7768.0@kwak>
References:	<4F41CB0A DOT 2020902 AT optonline DOT net>
	<1329784073 DOT 7768 DOT 0 AT kwak>
X-Mailer:	Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-AntiAbuse:	This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse:	Primary Hostname - gator297.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse:	Original Domain - delorie.com
X-AntiAbuse:	Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse:	Sender Address Domain - gibibit.com
X-BWhitelist:	no
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender:	spk.venturedesignservices.com (svelte) [65.61.115.34]:21026
X-Source-Auth:	colin AT gibibit DOT com
X-Email-Count:	1
X-Source-Cap:	c2t5bGVuO3NreWxlbjtnYXRvcjI5Ny5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t
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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:27:31 +0100
Kai-Martin <kmk AT familieknaak DOT de> wrote:

> Don't know about verilog. But VHDL compilers complain and refuse
> to synthesize such constructs inside a block. A block is the VHDL
> way to say that things should be done in parallel. Inside a
> process the snippet would be fine, since commands are executed
> sequentially.

I have only written Verilog, not VHDL, but in my experience Verilog
lets you shoot yourself in the foot too easily. It seems that VHDL
is more rigorous and robust in a number of situations, at the cost
of some added source code verbosity.  Would that be a fair
statement?

A worthwhile trade in favor of VHDL, it seems to me.

Regards,
Colin

- Raw text -