Improve wording of noClock #2370
Conversation
| {[}\emph{Note, it is necessary that \textbf{noClock} returns the value from | ||
| the last tick of the clock of u, as between different Base-Clocks there is | ||
| no guaranteed execution order. If \textbf{noClock} is used between different | ||
| Sub-Clocks of the same Base-Clock it is equivalent to \textbf{sample}(\textbf{previous}(u)).} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sample(...) is not allowed to have a clocked expression as input. It should be subSample(previous(u),1).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe you mean subSample(previous(u)) since they are two different sub-clock partitions and thus we need to infer the sub-sampling factor. However, it can also handle other cases (including superSample etc); so we need a more general statement.
| of the clock of y, the operator returns the value of u from the last | ||
| tick of the clock of u. If \textbf{noClock}(u) is called before the | ||
| first tick of the clock of u, the start value of u is returned.\\ \hline | ||
| The operator \textbf{noClock} is meant to enable efficient data exchange |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be in the non-normative text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apart from the changes by Gerd we also have the discussion in #2365 which concluded that noClock should not be possible between different base-clock partitions. (And if we need noClockBetweenBaseClockPartition we should create an MCP - and give it a better name.)
Thus I don't know what to do with this one? Close it and start again based on the result #2365 ?
|
As far as I can see the conclusion in #2365 went in a different direction compared to this PR, and thus it seems simplest to close this, and then clean up noClock from scratch. |
We had two issues (#2365 and #2355) with noClock so try to improve the wording to be more explicit about the use case and the expected return value