Pinging you via Ponymail ... I didn't get it via email
On 2026/08/27 08:46:22 QuanticPony wrote: > Yes it does. Thanks Chriss > +1 by me > > (Ping me if you get this mail please... I changed to plain-text format as it > was suggested on apache contib mail tips...) > > > On Thursday, August 27th, 2026 at 8:23 AM, Christofer Dutz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I wonder why I didn't get your reply in my email client, but only saw it > > when I wanted to post a link to the thread?!? > > > > Well ... in my proposal "XYZ[4]" would access the fifth element (assuming > > the default first element having the index 0. If you had a base-one array, > > that would be XYZ[4;1] which would then provide the fourth element in the > > array ... XYZ[3..5;2] would define an array starting at 2 and there > > returning the second to fourth elements. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Chris > > > > On 2026/08/20 14:50:29 QuanticPony wrote: > > > 4 years ago there was conversation about this. > > > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/nh1fd2wv88p6hxpjm4v00t4py1rmxrog) > > > > > > Back then XYZ[4] did mean read 4. I suppose reading byte 4 would be > > > XYZ[4..4] with the old version? That seems odd to me. > > > I did not have the pleasure of dealing with this so I am not sure. > > > > > > I like it better as you describe. > > > > > > There was also a XYZ[3:4] • (4 Elements starting with index 3: 3, 4, 5 > > > and 6). > > > Is it still valid? do we want to support it? > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless +1 by me to apply what you say to all drivers. > > > > > > Unai > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 20th, 2026 at 3:51 PM, Christofer Dutz > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > As I’m currently going through things that I addressed in my fork, I > > > > came across the fact that in my fork I treat: > > > > > > > > %DB42:28.0:BYTE[4] > > > > > > > > As reading one byte at index 4 … however I think some of our drivers > > > > interpret is as „read an array of 4 bytes“. > > > > > > > > I decided to go with the IEC standard of: > > > > > > > > %DB42:28.0:BYTE[0..7] > > > > > > > > Providing the start and end index of the elements I want. > > > > As some languages allow non-0 starts I define these as: > > > > > > > > %DB42:28.0:BYTE[4..7] > > > > > > > > If the offset is known by the driver. > > > > If the offset is not kown by the driver and it is not provided, then it > > > > assumes the start is at 0 > > > > However I can pass in the start index for cases where the driver > > > > doesn’t know and it’s not 0 > > > > > > > > %DB42:28.0:BYTE[4..7;1] > > > > > > > > And I should mention, that in case of non-0 arrays, this also helps: > > > > > > > > %DB42:28.0:BYTE[4;1] > > > > > > > > So … should we apply this to all drivers? > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
