Dear all,
With regard to Andy Foster's VERS proposal, Marty wrote:
> Now if this is changed to
>
> field(VERS,DBF_DOUBLE) {
> prompt("Version Number")
> promptgroup(GUI_DISPLAY)
> special(SPC_NOMOD)
> interest(1)
> initial(<version>)
> }
>
> The record developer changes <version> whenever he/she modifies the
> record support.
> Thus the version will be available automatically. If this is done we
> can't put the field in dbCommon.
Aren't DBF_DOUBLE, GUI_DISPLAY and SPC_NOMOD C pre-processor symbols? If
so,
initial(<version>)
could become:
initial(REC_VERSION)
or whatever, and a
#define REC_VERSION <version>
could be done before including dbCommon.dbd. Then it _could_ be in
dbCommon. Maybe this (a) won't work and/or (b) isn't much better than
changing the record support code?
William
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field DESC length Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: proposed RTYP field Pete Jemian
- 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: EPICS r3.13 field DESC length Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field DESC length Tim Mooney
- 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
|