Internal Bus Pins x[i..j] = v

[ouverson]

2nd Edition: Appendices: Hardware Description Language

A2.2 Multi-Bit Buses: Internal bus pins

"chipPart(..., x[i..j] = v, ...);"

"The second binding defines v to be an internal bus-pin of width j - I + 1 bits and sets its value to the bits indexed i to j (inclusive) of bus-pin x."

I understand the semantics. I checked my chip/gate implementations and I never used this "[i..j] = v" syntax; I assume the project architects intended this syntax to be used; which made me wonder if I could have done a better job writing my HDL by employing this "deduced implicitly from the bindings" syntax.

I would very much appreciate it if a non-student (The "My Implementation" links below link to HTML and Markdown documents that includes all my implementations) could please check my implementations and see if there are places where I could have used this syntax to improve efficiency and readability.

Thank you!

My Implementations - HTML

My Implementations - Markdown

[WBahn]

It looks like the new tools support sub-bussing of internal signals, which is good. It is not necessary, but it can make the implementations cleaner. Before you had to use signals that were sub-bussed by using multiple inputs/output of the part pins, which was clunky.

Neither way is "right" or "wrong".

[ouverson]

I haven't heard anything about "new tools".

If the new tools do support sub-bussing, I would think the authors would have amended the Appendices: Hardware Description Language accordingly.

[WBahn]

But isn't the section you are quoting from the 2nd Edition Appendices for the Hardware Description Language?

I haven't seen the final version of the second edition yet, so I may lack the necessary context at this point to answer you properly. Hopefully I'll have a copy in hand in the next two or three weeks.

[ouverson]

Yes, I'm quoting from the 2nd edition. As far as I know, there is no difference in the sub-bussing grammar and syntax - between the 1st and 2nd editions.