General > Opinions & Feedback

Wish list and comments

(1/2) > >>

cch1955:
I like the TRI PLC. I have been working with it for some time. I think it would be even better if the PC based code generation tools would support long varible names and equate them to the internal variable names (A-Z, DM[1-4000] It would
I would love floating poitn make managing program development much quicker. As it is you must keep notes ore spreadsheets to keep trak without  difficulties.

Pulling all douments togther into one manual with sections would be easier to use. The information is usually around in one of the (3-5) manuals or on line but it is not as good as a single document.

Floating point would be nice! Less fooling around to get where you need to go. Maybe a newer processor is needed here?

Thanks
In the trenches.

cch1955:
Here is a better looking version, tired fingers !
I like the TRI PLC. I have been working with it for some time. I think it would be even better if the PC based code generation tools would support long variable names and equate them to the internal variable names (A-Z, DM[1-4000] It would make managing program development much simpler for those who are not ?wizard? level programmers. As it is, you must keep notes or spreadsheets to keep track without difficulties.

Pulling all documents together into one manual with sections would be easier to use. The information is usually around in one of the (3-5) manuals or on line but it is not as good as a single document.

Floating point would be nice! Less fooling around to get where you need to go. Maybe a newer processor is needed here?

Thanks
In the trenches.

support:
Thank you for your feedback. Using long variable name may be nice, but the simple A to Z and DM[1] to DM[4000]  used on the T100MD+ PLC make it easy to monitor the content of all the variables involved at a glance. If we use long variable name then it would need a watch window to "watch" a few variables at a time like most high level language development system. I suppose each system probably has its merit. But thanks for the suggestions. Will send to the product development folks for consideration.

Joel Moore:
I like the idea of variable names, too.  Currently I have to maintain seperate documents to track which variables are being used in a program to ensure I don't reuse them.

You wouldn't necessarily have to change how variables are monitored I think.  If you make it so you specifically assign names to memory locations, probably adding another page the I/O tables, you could still have the monitoring interface simply show things as they are now.  As long as the variable name tables are easily accessible (maybe listed on the initial debugging screen) then it wouldn't be that hard to know which variables to look at in the other monitoring screens.

cch1955:
Yes I think you have it!

It seems to me it could almost be handled as a complier issue with the source using the long names and the generated code using the current method. The code editor would just maintain the cross-reference list.

I think the complier could recognize either the traditional labels or the long variable labels to suit the user. "X encoder position"  as a label provides so much more information to the code writer than "DM [1234]".

I have been so pleased with the TRI-PLC to date, I really think this addition would further the concept of quick, accurate code development.

CHeers

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page