Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Redman, Russell O." wrote:

> Marty, is it worth the bother to back out of the changes you made to add
> RAWL and RAWF?  Or are there enough special cases, and sufficient utility in
> simulation records to justify retaining RAWL and RAWF?

I would rather back out the changes. They have not appeared in any release thus
it is easy to do without impacting anyone.

I really really do not like to add fields that have limited usage and can be
confusing to users. I think RAWF,RAWL fall into this category. It is easy to
think or additional fields for many record types that can be useful in special
cases. The number of fields will just grow and grow.


Marty

Replies:

Re: RAWF, RAWL Benjamin Franksen

YAPFAC (yet another proposal for analog conversion) Benjamin Franksen

References:

RE: RAWF, RAWL Redman, Russell O.

Navigate by Date:

Prev: RE: RAWF, RAWL Redman, Russell O.

Next: Re: RAWF, RAWL Benjamin Franksen

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: RAWF, RAWL Redman, Russell O.

Next: Re: RAWF, RAWL Benjamin Franksen

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