Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

It is my assumption that if I define a record like so

record(ai, "pvname") {
  alias("aliasname")
  field(DESC , "This is a desc")
}

Then, caget on pvname.NAME and caget on aliasname.NAME will give me the same result; i.e. pvname. That is, the .NAME field is used to hold the true name of the record and is the same when I refer to the record by using the realname or the aliasname. 

Would this be a correct assumption? One of our PCAS IOC's is using the .NAME field for something else and I'm trying to determine if this would be the right thing to do.

Regards,
Murali

Replies:

Re: Clarification on aliases and the .NAME field Andrew Johnson

Navigate by Date:

Prev: RE: IP330 modules question Mark Rivers

Next: seqLog obsolete / errlog filtering based on source Emmanuel Mayssat

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: Announcement of publication of the Proceedings of PCaPAC-2012 Shantonu Sahoo

Next: Re: Clarification on aliases and the .NAME field Andrew Johnson

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