Make real interval clock similar to rational interval clock. #3754
Conversation
In particular continue example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't say anything regarding the "intention", but I can at least say that this is a backwards incompatible change, and we need to keep in mind the upset feelings around the backwards incompatible changes introduced in MSL 4.1.0. However, if no tool ever implemented what is currently in the specification, I think the risk of upsetting users is negligible.
That said, I personally don't have strong opinions about what is the better semantics to have in the specification. I find it more important to take into consideration how existing tools behave.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, better to make a dummy "request changes" while waiting for more input from tool vendors in #3753.
|
Language group: Agreed, incompatible change. |
chapters/synchronous.tex
Outdated
| \begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
| // first clock tick: previous(realNextInterval) = 0.002 | ||
| Real realNextInterval(start = 0.002); | ||
| Real y3(start = 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the point of calling the variable y3, wouldn't just y be a better name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw it as continuing the previous example (for rational interval clock) where we have y1 and y2.
But y would work as well.
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
chapters/synchronous.tex
Outdated
| \begin{example} | ||
| \begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
| // first clock tick: previous(realNextInterval) = 0.002 | ||
| Real realNextInterval(start = 0.002); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than having the very long name realNextInterval here, I think we could simply call it nextInterval, and at the same time update the example above to not use the name nextInterval for something which we call intervalCounter in the normative text. Calling it nextIntervalCounter in that example would make more sense.
2 participants
As far as I understand the use of previous for interval clocks was intended to be resolved in #2022 - but for some reason the real interval clock part seemed to have been missed. But please verify that this is the intended semantics.
I continued the example to show the similarity with rational interval clock.
Closes #3753