Adding members to structures and API compatibility
Wed, 09/25/2019 - 11:59 am
I've encouraged users to write functions which have the same signature as
STRUCT AnalysisFunction_V3& s
/// @brief The structure passed into `V3` and later analysis functions
/// one of @ref EVENT_TYPE_ANALYSIS_FUNCTIONS
/// raw data wave for interacting with the DAC hardware (locked to prevent
/// changes using `SetWaveLock`). The exact wave format depends on the hardware.
/// @sa GetHardwareDataWave()
/// active headstage index, `[0, NUM_HEADSTAGES[`
/// number of rows in `rawDACWave` which will be filled with data at the
/// end of DAQ. The total number of rows in `rawDACWave` might be higher
/// due to alignment requirements of the data acquisition hardware.
/// Always `NaN` for #PRE_DAQ_EVENT events.
/// number of rows in `rawDACWave` with already acquired data
/// Potential *future* number of the sweep. Once the sweep is finished it will be
/// saved with this number. Use GetSweepWave() to query the sweep itself.
/// Number of sweeps in the currently acquired stimset of the passed headstage
/// Analysis function parameters set in the stimset's textual parameter
/// wave. Settable via WBP_AddAnalysisParameter().
Now the obvious thing happened and I have to add another member to AnalysisFunction_V3.
Can that break something on the user side? I can assume that they are not passing the structure into an XOP.