[gsmecher]

These experiments are always unique, and each is interesting in its own way.

Can you comment on the use of asynchronous code rather than generators? For example, here's a throw-away example of a clock using generators and a syntax that's otherwise similar to yours:

  from more_itertools import take
  
  def drv_clock():
      while True:
          yield "1b1"
          yield "1b0"
  
  for x in take(10, drv_clock()):
      print(x)

I have written signal flow graphs (including feedback) using a generator-style approach, intended to prototype datapaths that are then manually translated into RTL. It's different, but not completely different.

[cjdrake]

As mentioned in another answer, deep down there's not much difference. Personally, I find async/await more elegant for concurrent algorithm design (e.g. https://github.com/cjdrake/seqlogic/blob/main/ipynb/dining_p...).

But control threads like a clock/reset aren't the main idea. Look at the example RISC V core for the design style we're attempting (https://github.com/cjdrake/seqlogic/tree/main/tests/riscv/co...). No async/await or yields anywhere. It's described in a structural way, and a couple layers of Python hide the details.

[woadwarrior01]

> Can you comment on the use of asynchronous code rather than generators?

I'm not the OP. IIUC, async functions are implemented using generators under the hood. cf: The asyncio.coroutine decorator from Python 3.4, before async await syntax was implemented in Python 3.5 (PEP 492).

[cjdrake]

Correct in this case. In src/seqlogic/sim.py there are four usages of 'yield' keyword that suspend the current coroutine and return control to the event loop.