Dirk, re...,
> Tim Mooney wrote:
> > Russell,
> >
> > I have new versions of postfix and calcPerform, which implement the
> > <? and >? operators, and which allow two or more (up to 20) arguments
> > to min() and max() functions. I've tested only under R3.13.5 on an
> > MV162. Here's the tar file:
> >
> > http://www.aps.anl.gov/xfd/SoftDist/swBCDA/postfix_R3.13.5.tar.gz
> >
> There seems to be a problem with the calcCheck() function.
> When I try to use the ? operator without : (that is allowed), I get this
> error:
>
> Illegal field value PV: ZIMOCH:calc calc: special: Illegal CALC field
>
> I tried "A>B?C"
>
> Using ?: works fine
That never occurred to me, though you're right, ? without : is documented in
the record reference manual. Paraphrasing, it says the result of "a?b" is b
if a is true, and "unchanged" if a is not true. This is a bit cryptic, because
in fact, old calcPerform() returned an error if it encountered ? without :, and
the calc record left its result alone
--
Tim Mooney ([email protected]; 630-252-5417)
Advanced Photon Source
APS Operations Division
Beamline Controls & Data Acquisition Group
- References:
- Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Redman, Russell O.
- Re: Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Tim Mooney
- Re: Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Dirk Zimoch
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Dirk Zimoch
- Next:
Re: the length of channel name 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
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Dirk Zimoch
- Next:
RE: Long expressions using MAX and MIN in CALC fields Redman, Russell O.
- 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
|