New function: memFile

[DigitalBrains1]

A helper function for producing files with memory contents for such
modules as Clash.Explicit.BlockRam.File, etcetera.

I know you agreed to my initial proposal of

showsBitPackFile
  :: BitPack a
  => a
  -> ShowS

-- used as
bla file es =
  writeFile file (foldr showsBitPackFile "" es)

but I changed my mind. The point of ShowS is that you can combine it with other datatypes that have a Show instance. But the memory file only contains words of a single length n. If people really want to put multiple datatypes into one memory, they can just pack it into BitVector n. So the function doesn't need to be combined in ways as ShowS, and you would in practice always invoke it as foldr showsBitPackFile "", so why not incorporate that directly so people don't have to write it.

Still TODO:

• Write a changelog entry (see changelog/README.md)
• Check copyright notices are up to date in edited files

[alex-mckenna]

It's unlikely that low and high will change, but maybe it's better to do

case care of
  Just b
    | b == low -> ...
    | b == high -> ...

[DigitalBrains1]

That'll error on don't care bits!

[alex-mckenna]

I don't care about those 😉

But more seriously, I thought they had a non-zero mask anyway? Or is that only undefined bits?

[DigitalBrains1]

s/bits/bit/ :-)

[DigitalBrains1]

I never saw your comment before, odd. I was s/-ing my own "don't care bits" comment. The problem is that Eq Bit correctly stumbles over undefined bits. After all, you want lsb $(bLit ".") == 0 to throw an error instead of taking a wild stab at a boolean result.

[alex-mckenna]

Ah yes, I see now. I guess you would need to use something like Clash.Class.BitPack.isLike to compare in a way that's friendly to don't care values

[DigitalBrains1]

The semantics of that here would mean that you want don't care bits to be mapped to don't care bits. And that is precisely the semantics of the current code. Just $ lsb $(bLit ".") is handled the same as Nothing by the _ pattern match.

[DigitalBrains1]

User code should probably not peek under the hood of Bit, but we can do that, it's the same body of code as where it is defined.

[alex-mckenna]

Also, you've ticked the changelog box but haven't pushed a changelog. Have you forgotten a git add?

[DigitalBrains1]

Also, you've ticked the changelog box but haven't pushed a changelog. Have you forgotten a git add?

Again? Man....