Jump to content

twieman

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hi Anton, Thanks for posting your questions. Your inquiry about a top-level convenience parameter is something that was discussed during development of the standard. An alias mechanism allowing multiple (synonymous) names for a parameter was considered. However, this is non-essential so it was decided to defer it in the interest of simplicity for the initial release. You are correct, the workaround is to create a separate parameter and synchronize them. It is possible to hide parameters as you’ve expressed. The mechanism for doing so is not standardized but example 14 demonstrates one possible solution. Hope this helps, Trevor
  2. Hi Ralph, Thanks for your feedback! The CCI WG agrees with your suggestion and will incorporate it into the LRM. Best regards, Trevor Wieman CCI WG Chair
  3. Hi Ralph, We greatly appreciate your eagle eye review. The CCI WG will fix #2 and apply the substitution you've suggested in #3. For #1 we've tried generating the PDF using a different tool that seems to help; we've emailed you a copy to see if you can confirm improved visibility of the underscores. Thanks for the feedback! Best regards, Trevor Wieman CCI WG Chair
  4. Ralph, thanks for your thorough review and very helpful feedback. The CCI WG agrees with your suggestions and will incorporate them into the LRM. reset() has no effect on a locked parameter (requiring that it explicitly be unlocked first) and we intend to add an example that demonstrates this. Thanks again, Trevor Wieman CCI WG Chair
×
×
  • Create New...