V
valtih1978
Guest
What is the conceptual difference between function an operator? Do tools
treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
rickman
Guest
On 10/2/2012 8:39 PM, KJ wrote:
definition of operator vs. function and the restrictions of each. But
I'm not sure that operators are limited to the ones defined in the
language. Is that correct that you can't add a new operator to VHDL,
but only define existing operators for new operands?
I've got the spec here somewhere, but I don't want to drag it out and
dig into it. This is not a fun document to review.
Rick
I didn't reply to the original post because I don't know the formalOn Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, valtih1978 wrote:
What is the conceptual difference between function an operator? Do tools treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
Tools are supposed to treat an operator and the equivalent function the same. I haven't run into any issues defining a function to use an operator but I also don't have a need to do this very often.
The biggest difference is that while you can come up with arbitrarily named functions with a whole bunch of parameters, the operators and the parameters for those operators are all pre-defined (i.e. +, -, 'and' 'or' ...)
Kevin Jennings
definition of operator vs. function and the restrictions of each. But
I'm not sure that operators are limited to the ones defined in the
language. Is that correct that you can't add a new operator to VHDL,
but only define existing operators for new operands?
I've got the spec here somewhere, but I don't want to drag it out and
dig into it. This is not a fun document to review.
Rick
K
KJ
Guest
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, valtih1978 wrote:
The biggest difference is that while you can come up with arbitrarily named functions with a whole bunch of parameters, the operators and the parameters for those operators are all pre-defined (i.e. +, -, 'and' 'or' ...)
Kevin Jennings
Tools are supposed to treat an operator and the equivalent function the same. I haven't run into any issues defining a function to use an operator but I also don't have a need to do this very often.What is the conceptual difference between function an operator? Do tools treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
The biggest difference is that while you can come up with arbitrarily named functions with a whole bunch of parameters, the operators and the parameters for those operators are all pre-defined (i.e. +, -, 'and' 'or' ...)
Kevin Jennings
A
Andy
Guest
Additional operators cannot be defined by the user in VHDL. Existing operators can be redefined (overloaded) for additional data types, etc.
Off the top of my head, the only difference between an operator and an equivalent function are the infix vs postfix notation of the arguments.
A side effect of expression evaluation also provides a difference in the way operators and functions are executed. Operators in expressions can be executed in different orders based on rules defined in the standard. For instance, the expression: A+B+C can be evalutated in any order, but the expression: "+"(a, "+"(b, c)) must be evaluated in the order written. Note that synthesis may re-order the operations during optimization anyway.
Andy
Off the top of my head, the only difference between an operator and an equivalent function are the infix vs postfix notation of the arguments.
A side effect of expression evaluation also provides a difference in the way operators and functions are executed. Operators in expressions can be executed in different orders based on rules defined in the standard. For instance, the expression: A+B+C can be evalutated in any order, but the expression: "+"(a, "+"(b, c)) must be evaluated in the order written. Note that synthesis may re-order the operations during optimization anyway.
Andy
V
valtih1978
Guest
On 3.10.2012 19:58, Andy wrote:
notation? Lisp teachers say that there are many different notations in
mathematics, even wrapping the argument for square root, so Lisp puts
the end to this jumble and uses only one. And everything is function in
Lisp. But, do they mean that everything was a function and they have
just fixed a notation or choosing another notation changes a category of
your object? Is operator vs. function a syntactic category?
functional (Lisp) notation: f(a,b)
OOP method call notation: a.f(b)
operator (infix) notation: a f b
?
Scala guys, who merged OOP with functional paradigm, explained that
a.+(b) is essentially the same and can be written as a + b
To me, these three are the same thing. So, I do not understand why they
are called operations in one case and functions in another.
mislead people from the A+(B+C) comparison to show that functions may
have parenthesis and thus are different? Actually, VHDL specifies the
order of operator evaluation as well as Scheme interpreter, that
normally evaluates operands in applicative order applies lazy evaluation
to "special forms". But, as everything in Lisp, they are still
functions. So, being a function or operator is not a syntactic category.
Am I right?
Why cannot we say that some build-in functions may be written in infixAdditional operators cannot be defined by the user in VHDL. Existing operators can be redefined (overloaded) for additional data types, etc.
Off the top of my head, the only difference between an operator and an equivalent function are the infix vs postfix notation of the arguments.
notation? Lisp teachers say that there are many different notations in
mathematics, even wrapping the argument for square root, so Lisp puts
the end to this jumble and uses only one. And everything is function in
Lisp. But, do they mean that everything was a function and they have
just fixed a notation or choosing another notation changes a category of
your object? Is operator vs. function a syntactic category?
functional (Lisp) notation: f(a,b)
OOP method call notation: a.f(b)
operator (infix) notation: a f b
?
Scala guys, who merged OOP with functional paradigm, explained that
a.+(b) is essentially the same and can be written as a + b
To me, these three are the same thing. So, I do not understand why they
are called operations in one case and functions in another.
Do you compare A+B+C order against "+"(a, "+"(b, c)) intentionally toA side effect of expression evaluation also provides a difference in the way operators and functions are executed. Operators in expressions can be executed in different orders based on rules defined in the standard. For instance, the expression: A+B+C can be evalutated in any order, but the expression: "+"(a, "+"(b, c)) must be evaluated in the order written. Note that synthesis may re-order the operations during optimization anyway.
Andy
mislead people from the A+(B+C) comparison to show that functions may
have parenthesis and thus are different? Actually, VHDL specifies the
order of operator evaluation as well as Scheme interpreter, that
normally evaluates operands in applicative order applies lazy evaluation
to "special forms". But, as everything in Lisp, they are still
functions. So, being a function or operator is not a syntactic category.
Am I right?
A
Andy
Guest
Operators do not have parentheses (unless invoked as a function call). Instead, expressions have parentheses, as defined by the VHDL LRM.
I was incorrect, as you pointed out; VDHL does dictate left-right association of operators of the same precedence, but with one exception: VHDL defines short circuiting of specific operators used on operands of types bit and boolean, whereby the right hand operand is not evaluated if a specific value is provided by the left hand operand (e.g. false AND anything is false, so anything is not evaluated). Therefore, strictly speaking, the expression (false and B and C) is not evaluated left to right, since the right hand operator two operands are not evaluated at all.
VHDL functions are not* short circuited (all operands are evalutated prior to calling the function).
*It is unclear what would happen if you invoked a short-circuiting operator as a function call with the appropriate operand types to allow short-circuiting.
You asked this question in a VHDL group. I am not familiar with your definition of what constitutes the same syntactic category. To me, syntax includes how it is used/invoked, and is clearly different between operators and functions in VHDL.
Andy
I was incorrect, as you pointed out; VDHL does dictate left-right association of operators of the same precedence, but with one exception: VHDL defines short circuiting of specific operators used on operands of types bit and boolean, whereby the right hand operand is not evaluated if a specific value is provided by the left hand operand (e.g. false AND anything is false, so anything is not evaluated). Therefore, strictly speaking, the expression (false and B and C) is not evaluated left to right, since the right hand operator two operands are not evaluated at all.
VHDL functions are not* short circuited (all operands are evalutated prior to calling the function).
*It is unclear what would happen if you invoked a short-circuiting operator as a function call with the appropriate operand types to allow short-circuiting.
You asked this question in a VHDL group. I am not familiar with your definition of what constitutes the same syntactic category. To me, syntax includes how it is used/invoked, and is clearly different between operators and functions in VHDL.
Andy
V
valtih1978
Guest
On 5.10.2012 1:58, Andy wrote:
distinguishing feature. It is like saying that men and women are
different because only some men have ever been elected presidents. Such
reason lacks logic because majority of men have never been presidents so
you cannot say that this is a distinguishing feature. Should a man that
have never been a president be qualified as a woman? What if lady
becomes a president one time? Indeed, what will you say if VHDL
designers predefine a build-in function with a special evaluation order?
operators and functions in VHDL.
Do you mean that a+b is an operator but writing "+"(a,b) changes it to a
function?
Now, you extend the "exception" to all operators and present it as aOperators do not have parentheses (unless invoked as a function call). Instead, expressions have parentheses, as defined by the VHDL LRM.
I was incorrect, as you pointed out; VDHL does dictate left-right association of operators of the same precedence, but with one exception: VHDL defines short circuiting of specific operators used on operands of types bit and boolean, whereby the right hand operand is not evaluated if a specific value is provided by the left hand operand (e.g. false AND anything is false, so anything is not evaluated). Therefore, strictly speaking, the expression (false and B and C) is not evaluated left to right, since the right hand operator two operands are not evaluated at all.
VHDL functions are not* short circuited (all operands are evalutated prior to calling the function).
distinguishing feature. It is like saying that men and women are
different because only some men have ever been elected presidents. Such
reason lacks logic because majority of men have never been presidents so
you cannot say that this is a distinguishing feature. Should a man that
have never been a president be qualified as a woman? What if lady
becomes a president one time? Indeed, what will you say if VHDL
designers predefine a build-in function with a special evaluation order?
syntax includes how it is used/invoked, and is clearly different betweenYou asked this question in a VHDL group. I am not familiar with your
definition of what constitutes the same syntactic category. To me,
operators and functions in VHDL.
Do you mean that a+b is an operator but writing "+"(a,b) changes it to a
function?
V
valtih1978
Guest
On 8.10.2012 20:11, Andy wrote:
option, you make a false dichotomy and is my time to ask: do you have a
point in your replies?
I have a question. By proposing a dilemma that does not consider thisOn Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:56:22 AM UTC-5, valtih1978 wrote:
What is the conceptual difference between function an operator? Do tools treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
Is there a point to your questions or do you just want to argue?
option, you make a false dichotomy and is my time to ask: do you have a
point in your replies?
A
Andy
Guest
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:56:22 AM UTC-5, valtih1978 wrote:
Is there a point to your questions or do you just want to argue?What is the conceptual difference between function an operator? Do tools treat differently or supposed to be treated differently?
A
Andy
Guest
You asked about differences between functions and operators. I gave you some differences within the scope of VHDL (what this group is about). There are differences between them. They are not the same. I will leave it up to you to determine whether those differences meet your definition of significance.
This is a vhdl group. I doubt you will find here many experts on, or many people who care about, the esoteric qualities of programming languages in which you appear interested.
Have a good day,
Andy
This is a vhdl group. I doubt you will find here many experts on, or many people who care about, the esoteric qualities of programming languages in which you appear interested.
Have a good day,
Andy
V
valtih1978
Guest
On 9.10.2012 16:06, Andy wrote:
difference between them. Does concentrating on VHDL excuses logic
faults? Do you mean I should eat all ... that you assent to provide just
only because it is VHDL-limited?
Why do you call those properties "esoteric" in other programming
languages? What are the "normal" properties of operator and function?
There are also differences between men and woman, I also gave aYou asked about differences between functions and operators. I gave you some differences within the scope of VHDL (what this group is about). There are differences between them. They are not the same. I will leave it up to you to determine whether those differences meet your definition of significance.
This is a vhdl group. I doubt you will find here many experts on, or many people who care about, the esoteric qualities of programming languages in which you appear interested.
Have a good day,
Andy
difference between them. Does concentrating on VHDL excuses logic
faults? Do you mean I should eat all ... that you assent to provide just
only because it is VHDL-limited?
Why do you call those properties "esoteric" in other programming
languages? What are the "normal" properties of operator and function?
A
Andy
Guest
Yep, you just want to argue...
bye.
bye.