|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Yair – (see my other email proposing)
The definition of the variable is not the place to make those distinctions. The state diagram defines that you don’t set these variables true except when you’ve passed through detection and classification.
I understand the principle you want to follow. Please note that the additional description in the TRUE case of detection and classification was added due to the importance of not power unless these action where done while in the FALSE case obviously they are not required.
Logically there is no reason to make the changes you propose.
The question is now if to have for that matter short description or clear description. In this case I preffer clear description i.e. keep it as is but to clean the “will” issue.
We discussed this at the last meeting and I feel we did not end up with a good solution.
The definition of variables should be restricted to what the variable does or represents.
These variables' "TRUE" description includes behaviour that (should have) happened in the past, as well as making a forward looking statement.
If we look at how these variables are actually used, the definition really is very simple:
FALSE = The PSE is not to apply power to the XYZ Alternative.
TRUE = The PSE is to apply power to the XYZ Alternative.