> >From the responses to the message I sent about RTYP there are objections
> to implementing RTYP via a new DBR_type rather than a new field in each
> record instance.
>
There is nothing stopping us from having both a new DBR_xxx type and also a new
pseudo field name which has storage in the record description, but not in the record
instance. It appears that there are important uses for both interfaces to the
system (i.e. links use the new field names, and general purpose clients that do not
wish to break when the PV name syntax varies will use the new DBR_ type).
Jeff Hill
- Replies:
- Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Jeff Hill
- Next:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS and RTYP Steve Lewis
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
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: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Jeff Hill
- Next:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Marty Kraimer
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|