On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:29:55 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > in addition, to correctly render these consecutive trigger signals, > you have to know future data (the next trigger). the alternative is to > delay the next trigger, either in similar fashion by breaking up the > second run() cycle, or by postponing it until the next cycle. if in > the latter case you have another trigger request waiting to be > signalled then, you're completely lost.
The same is true if you signal the rising and falling edge seperatly, it just raises the bar a bit. Its also not a serious problem, we allready have the situation that if you need higher control resolution you need to decrease the buffer size and in practice its easy to handle. > >- Maybe you want to specify the physical position of the scale points as > > well, either to solve the above problem, or to have something more subtle > > than the LIN / LOG choice we have now. > > that surely belongs into RDF, doesn't it? Why would this go in RDF and enumertions/scales not? - Steve
