Haskell an obvious choice.
\section[sec:prototype:output]{Output format}
- The second important question is: What will be our output format?
+ The second important question is: what will be our output format?
This output format should at least allow for programming the
hardware design into a field-programmable gate array (\small{FPGA}).
The choice of output format is thus limited by what hardware
func arg
\stoplambda
This is function application. Each application consists of two
- parts: The function part and the argument part. Applications are used
+ parts: the function part and the argument part. Applications are used
for normal function \quote{calls}, but also for applying type
abstractions and data constructors.
Word} and \hs{Word} types by pattern matching and by using the explicit
the \hs{State constructor}.
- This explicit conversion makes the \VHDL\ generation easier: Whenever we
+ This explicit conversion makes the \VHDL\ generation easier: whenever we
remove (unpack) the \hs{State} type, this means we are accessing the
current state (\eg, accessing the register output). Whenever we are a
adding (packing) the \hs{State} type, we are producing a new value for
function.
Fortunately, the \lam{accs'} variable (and any other substate) has a
- property that we can easily check: It has a \lam{State} type
+ property that we can easily check: it has a \lam{State} type
annotation. This means that whenever \VHDL\ is generated for a tuple
(or other algebraic type), we can simply leave out all elements that
have a \lam{State} type. This will leave just the parts of the state
\stoplambda
When we would really leave out the crossed out parts, we get a slightly
- weird program: There is a variable \lam{s} which has no value, and there
+ weird program: there is a variable \lam{s} which has no value, and there
is a variable \lam{s'} that is never used. Together, these two will form
the state process of the function. \lam{s} contains the "current" state,
\lam{s'} is assigned the "next" state. So, at the end of each clock