X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:45:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] New experimental netlist features
In-Reply-To: <201509082355.t88NtdSM012317@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1509091133300.2682@lichen>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of notations where the first and last included element 
>> are mentioned; but I realize some users might want to use such a 
>> format, so I allowed typing "0..7" instead of "0:8".
>
> Aren't there standards for this already?  I'm thinking of verilog...

I wasn't aware of Verilog; my syntax is inspired by Pascal ("0 to 7") and 
Python ("0:8").

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I looked up the verilog and its [msb:lsb]
>
> so D[6:4] would be three signals (D6,D5,D4), and D[4:6] would be the
> same three signals in the other order.

That's unfortunate.  So there are two conflicting interpretations for a 
common notation...

Do you have any suggestion for a less ambiguous syntax?

Roland