Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
|
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Another point: What is the use of the method definition, apart from
generating a C++ member declaration? If there is no other use, we can
avoid it by using a regular top-level procedure, as shown in my
proposal on the wiki. I ask because I find it somewhat ugly to cite a
foreign language (C++) term inside the dbd file. I know, we already do
this for DBF_NO_ACCESS fields, but I never liked that one either (and I
believe it can be avoided, too).
It also documents the methods available for the record support user, and
means we don't have to have your parallel xxxStructSupport.h file which
contains just those declarations. The DBD file contains the *complete*
interface to the structure and its methods, and the record support code
that calls it is easier to understand. If the method is short enough it
could even be defined inline inside the string itself..
It would be possible to replace the line
method("STATUS constrain(ValType &value)")
with something like
method(constrain) {
returns(STATUS)
argument(value, reference(ValType))
}
but IMHO that would be pointless - it's less flexible, a lot more effort
to parse and convert, and totally unnecessary since the only direct
interface we're providing to the structure is through C++ code anyway.
One minor detail: We should have a consistent scheme for C/C++ entities
generated from dbd definitions.
Agreed, although we might need reminding about that later once we get to
that level of detail.
Wow. A dedicated DBD/DB extension language. Let me think a while
about /that/ one, before I comment...
Please don't spend time on that, IMHO it's way too ambitious to ever
happen (unless you're also offering to do all the work implementing it
as well...).
- Andrew
--
Podiabombastic: The tendency to shoot oneself in the foot.
- Replies:
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- References:
- V4 iocRecord: forward linking Ralph Lange
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Andrew Johnson
- Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: V4 EpicsString Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
Re: Record support and user-defined fields Benjamin Franksen
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|
ANJ, 02 Feb 2012 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
·
Search
·
EPICS V4
·
IRMIS
·
Talk
·
Bugs
·
Documents
·
Links
·
Licensing
·
|