Hi Julian,
Seems the mail I send didn't go out yesterday, so here goes again ... this time
I removed what I'm replying to as even my email client is having problems with
the length __
I think you understood me correctly.
Sticking to the one example:
HurzReal (Double) %DB3.DBL4:LREAL
In this case this is actually the concatenation of two pieces of information:
1. The address and size of the data itself: %DB3.DBL4
2. How the data is interpreted: LREAL
Now when getting information from the engineer, we would be probably given
exactly these two pieces of information.
If we just stick to "REAL" and the "L" (Your preferred shorted version), then
isn't the "REAL" redundant too, because of the generic type we are using?
If we supported both and would have LREAL as type, this would be a little
redundant information, I agree, but it does make things simpler in the
communication with the engineers.
None would have to translate a type in TIA to a base type.
But the tooling could be made to use the "L" in conjunction with a "REAL" and
auto translate that to a "LREAL" so all of this could be equivalent:
%DB3.DBL4:LREAL (little redundant information)
%DB3.DB4:LREAL (fully qualified)
%DB3.DBL4:REAL ("L" in the address upgrades base type "REAL" to "LREAL")
So I wouldn't have the user skip the "L", but allow him to omit it and if he
didn't want to, to just work with that.
Of course something like this should cause an error:
%DB3.DBX4:LREAL
I'll whip up an Enum which I will not reference from the code yet ... I guess
this way you'll have an idea on what I would suggest.
Chris
