expression, one using only case expressions and one using pattern
matching and guards.
-\begin{verbatim}
-sumif cmp a b = if cmp == Eq && a == b
- || cmp == Neq && a != b
- then a + b
- else 0
-\end{verbatim}
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-sumif cmp a b = case cmp of
- Eq -> case a == b of
- True -> a + b
- False -> 0
- Neq -> case a != b of
- True -> a + b
- False -> 0
-\end{verbatim}
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-sumif Eq a b | a == b = a + b
-sumif Neq a b | a != b = a + b
-sumif _ _ _ = 0
-\end{verbatim}
+\begin{code}
- sumif pred a b =
- if pred == Eq && a == b || pred == Neq && a != b
- then a + b
- else 0
++sumif pred a b = if pred == Eq && a == b
++ || pred == Neq && a != b
++ then a + b
++ else 0
+
+sumif pred a b = case pred of
+ Eq -> case a == b of
+ True -> a + b
+ False -> 0
+ Neq -> case a != b of
+ True -> a + b
+ False -> 0
+
+sumif Eq a b | a == b = a + b
+sumif Neq a b | a != b = a + b
+sumif _ _ _ = 0
+\end{code}
TODO: Pretty picture
These types are translated to \VHDL\ enumerations, with one value for
each constructor. This allows references to these constructors to be
translated to the corresponding enumeration value.
- \item[\textbf{Sum types}]
- A sum type is an algebraic datatype with multiple constructors, where
- the constructors have one or more fields. Technically, a type with
- more than one field per constructor is a sum of products type, but
- for our purposes this distinction does not really make a
- difference, so this distinction is note made.
-
- The \quote{sum} in its name refers again to the collection of values
- belonging to this type. The collection for a sum type is the
- union of the the collections for each of the constructors.
-
- Sum types are currently not supported by the prototype, since there is
- no obvious \VHDL\ alternative. They can easily be emulated, however, as
- we will see from an example:
-
- \begin{verbatim}
- data Sum = A Bit Word | B Word
- \end{verbatim}
-
- An obvious way to translate this would be to create an enumeration to
- distinguish the constructors and then create a big record that
- contains all the fields of all the constructors. This is the same
- translation that would result from the following enumeration and
- product type (using a tuple for clarity):
-
- \begin{verbatim}
- data SumC = A | B
- type Sum = (SumC, Bit, Word, Word)
- \end{verbatim}
-
- Here, the \hs{SumC} type effectively signals which of the latter three
- fields of the \hs{Sum} type are valid (the first two if \hs{A}, the
- last one if \hs{B}), all the other ones have no useful value.
-
- An obvious problem with this naive approach is the space usage: the
- example above generates a fairly big \VHDL\ type. Since we can be
- sure that the two \hs{Word}s in the \hs{Sum} type will never be valid
- at the same time, this is a waste of space.
-
- Obviously, duplication detection could be used to reuse a
- particular field for another constructor, but this would only
- partially solve the problem. If two fields would be, for
- example, an array of 8 bits and an 8 bit unsigned word, these are
- different types and could not be shared. However, in the final
- hardware, both of these types would simply be 8 bit connections,
- so we have a 100\% size increase by not sharing these.
- \end{xlist}
+ \item[\bf{Multiple constructors with fields}]
+ Algebraic datatypes with multiple constructors, where at least
+ one of these constructors has one or more fields are not
+ currently supported.
- \end{xlist}
-
++ \end{xlist}
+ \subsection{State}
+ A very important concept in hardware it the concept of state. In a
+ stateful design, the outputs depend on the history of the inputs, or the
+ state. State is usually stored in registers, which retain their value
+ during a clock cycle. As we want to describe more than simple
+ combinatorial designs, \CLaSH\ needs an abstraction mechanism for state.
+
+ An important property in Haskell, and in most other functional languages,
+ is \emph{purity}. A function is said to be \emph{pure} if it satisfies two
+ conditions:
+ \begin{inparaenum}
+ \item given the same arguments twice, it should return the same value in
+ both cases, and
+ \item when the function is called, it should not have observable
+ side-effects.
+ \end{inparaenum}
+ This purity property is important for functional languages, since it
+ enables all kinds of mathematical reasoning that could not be guaranteed
+ correct for impure functions. Pure functions are as such a perfect match
+ for a combinatorial circuit, where the output solely depends on the
+ inputs. When a circuit has state however, it can no longer be simply
+ described by a pure function. Simply removing the purity property is not a
+ valid option, as the language would then lose many of it mathematical
+ properties. In an effort to include the concept of state in pure
+ functions, the current value of the state is made an argument of the
+ function; the updated state becomes part of the result.
+
+ A simple example is the description of an accumulator circuit:
+ \begin{code}
+ acc :: Word -> State Word -> (State Word, Word)
+ acc inp (State s) = (State s', outp)
+ where
+ outp = s + inp
+ s' = outp
+ \end{code}
+ This approach makes the state of a function very explicit: which variables
+ are part of the state is completely determined by the type signature. This
+ approach to state is well suited to be used in combination with the
+ existing code and language features, such as all the choice constructs, as
+ state values are just normal values.
\section{\CLaSH\ prototype}
foo\par bar
projects / matthijs / master-project / dsd-paper.git / commitdiff