Miscellaneous Do-More Questions

[Controls Guy]

Like this: "D[D[V0] + D[V1]] = Expression"? Yes.

In a related/overlapping vein, would it be feasible to open up indices to other than V-Memory?  The 0-65K UINT range of V's aligns nicely with max array sizes, but it would have been nice today to be able to do MyUserDB[MyNamedConstant].  Don't know how much grief that would cause y'all, or if it's even possible.

[BobO]

Well...if a named constant is jus a super simple expression, I would expect it to work as requested.

[franji1]

In a related/overlapping vein, would it be feasible to open up indices to other than V-Memory?  The 0-65K UINT range of V's aligns nicely with max array sizes, but it would have been nice today to be able to do MyUserDB[MyNamedConstant].  Don't know how much grief that would cause y'all, or if it's even possible.

In MATH expressions, anything/everything should work.  However, most other instructions require "simple" array accesses using V array index or V + offset array index (where offset is decimal range 1..63).  This "limitation" (it's actually a powerful feature) also applies to Ladder Status, Data View status, and Trend View from within Designer (yes, Virginia, you can monitor R[V42+63] on your Trend View, and as V42 changes, your realtime plot of that array reference will work seamlessly  )

[Controls Guy]

Well...if a named constant is jus a super simple expression, I would expect it to work as requested.

Right, I figured that it would in the context of that post, which was the destination field of MATH boxes.  Why I said "overlapping" was my request was broader but less deep than that specific scenario: the feasibility of expanding indirect addressing throughout Do-More, though not to the complexity we've been discussing re: the MATH box arguments (unless you really wanna! )

[BobO]

In simple parameters, no. The encoding can't support it. We envision an expanded encoding in the future that might.

But we do eventually see the current expressions supported for most input parameters.

[Controls Guy]

In simple parameters, no. The encoding can't support it. We envision an expanded encoding in the future that might.

But we do eventually see the current expressions supported for most input parameters.

Can you define for me "simple parameters" vs. "most input parameters".  Sounds like category 2 gets enhanced parameters before category 1.  Am I reading that correctly?