Automatic naming of signals in HAL

This is for discussion about a potential feature which would automatically name/identify signals in HAL. Right now, a signal name always have to be given with the net command. But I see no technical reason why that is the case. New signal names could be generated automatically if none is given. And if trying to connect to a pin which already have a signal connected, that could simply be detected and linked to the already existing signal.

Right now I am using some code like:
I see very little additional value in the signal names geartrain_reverse_OR_stage1-3. It only clutters the "logic". And this clutter gets only worse the more complicated the logic is. Even the gearbox_search_slow provides little value. Instead, it could be like this: At least to my brain, the logic function is in this case easier to read. The net command could the automatically generate signal names where they are not provieded. For instance net_0001, net_0002, net_0003, net_0004 or similar. And if I want to use for instance geartrain.stage2.search_reverse for something else, the "net geartrain.stage2.search_reverse => hm2_7i95.0.7i84.0.0.output-03" command could automatically identify that the signal connected to the pin is named "net_0002" and just add to that same signal.

Similarly, if I want to for instance turn on a light when the spindle should be running, I could simply do "net spindle.0.on => hm2_7i95.0.7i84.0.0.output-01" instead of having to figure out where a signal was first connected to "spindle.0.on" and then use that signal name.

What are other peoples thoughts on this? I do think that giving meaningful names to signals is general good practice. But why force it in cases where "anonymous" signals would make more sense?

Yes, I think its a good idea and something I have suggested a while ago.
Especially for multi-stage logic, simply connecting pin to pin makes more
sense.

Okay, good that somebody else feels the same.

I realize the first post was rather long. The TL;DR is: why not have the HAL net command give signal names automatically in case no net name is specified. And if multiple connections is done to the same pin, simply link the following ones to the signal that is already there, without having to explicitly specify its name.

i was suggesting that you can easily do it in TCL youself, but apparently there's no command which would return a net name a pin connected to. only "show pin" which prints to stdout. and it's a bit complicated to capture it into a variable...
anyways, the following show work:

That's really interesting. I had no idea hal "scripts" are actually Tcl. Thank you for the neta function. I did just quickly test it out and indeed it appears to work.

Why do you say that debugging hal files would be difficult? From where I'm standing, debugging usually starts by checking why one input (or output) is not what its expected to be. The following step is to check what is connected to that input. To do that we can use the "show sig" command, which will then display all pins connected together. So I already see which (other) pin is driving that signal, and the name of the signal has little significance.

Is there some normal use case I'm not thinking about? I'm not saying that named nets are bad, I'm just questioning why there is no inbuilt automatic naming of nets. Is it just that nobody has done it, or is there some more fundamental argument against (supporting) automatic naming of nets?