Well, I guess mostly I‘ve seen it more treated like: If there’s no “..” the number is the size of the array, … if there’s a “..” then the prefix is the offset. And yes: the Golang approach is again very different to what I have seen be used in industrial automation.
Chris From: Sebastian Rühl <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 13. October 2022 at 09:06 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: BOOLeans ;-) In some language I saw that being used as ranges: BOOL[5] would be one bool at index 5 BOOL[:5] would be 5 bools till index 5 BOOL[3:5] would be 3 bools from index 3 to 5 BOOL[2:] would be all bools from index 2 BOOL[:-1] would be all bools till the last index -1 So maybe I'm wrong, but when you write 50000.3:BOOL[5] you mean 50000.3:BOOL[:5], right? Sebastian On 2022/10/13 13:40:08 Christofer Dutz wrote: > Hi all, > > seems we got a PR where someone implemented my proposal for handling Booleans > (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PLC4X/Cleanup+of+how+we+handle+all+the+bit-related+fields) > For Modbus in Go (https://github.com/apache/plc4x/pull/545) > > I think we should probably finish some of the discussions on this and > document them in the project. > > With the latest discussions on the Browse API and how to deal with > (muti-dimensional) arrays … I think probably a notation: > > 50000:BOOL[3..8] > > Would be better than: > > 50000.3:BOOL[5] > > What do you think? > > Chris >
