Alrighty then. Have a good one

Alias isn’t just a good macro practice for command quality. Let’s assume you program the remote and have 8 macros with variables. Client changes tv brand - all I need to do is drag the new power command onto my hidden page. Done - one simple step. Your method involves locating all those individual tv commands in both variable states and changing them. So although dragging IR codes can work you won’t usually find that method used for a few reasons like the one I described

It's also a necessity of you route IR ports, as you should.

If you have a complicated system I can see where that would be appropriate. In my case I rarely use anything other than the power on and off commands. I basically just create separate button that allows me access all of the commands from the TV incase I need to work on the setting for some odd reason. In the future if the only way is to access 8K content then I might make more use of the TV's capabilities. The way I have programmed my remote, I would simply need to change four commands, if in the future I needed to buy a new TV.

My system consist of a processor and power amp, apple 4k tv box, Panasonic UB9000 4k Blu-ray player, and an 8K Samsung TV. If you are curious why I have delays built in it is because of HDMI handshake issues with my processor. A firmware patch is due next week and hopefully will correct the problem which will allow me to simplify my macro.

I also have misplaced my "Programming in CCP" manual. Some how it disappeared and I had go from memory. If I had it I probably would not have come to this forum for help.

I'm glad you got your issue fixed. But let me explain why EVERYONE is telling you not to drag codes into the macro and use aliases.

URC themselves teach NOT to do this. It will cause problems sometimes, because the software relies on the origin of the codes to properly route the IR. It can even not route at all if doing it this way and is completely random. That is why URC themselves tell you NOT to do this.
If you were an authorized installer that had been to training, you would know this. But as a consumer, you have to learn these things from others.
Not really sure why you are insistent you know better, when very clearly you do not.
And being a 'software developer' means nothing in this conversation. Throwing something like that out there, when it has no relevance to this problem, makes it kind of look like you are the one being arrogant.
But I understand, you are getting frustrated at Golden getting frustrated, everyone is getting frustrated. It's just a remote.

By the way, I understand you have equipment that is causing you to need a delay. But I believe in my 25 years of experience programming - see how I threw that in there :) - that you are going about it wrong. But as long as it works for you. It's all good.

I swear people are going to think I'm bi-polar. Sometimes yelling at people and sometimes being passive.

It's just faster to use aliases:

The reason, via Stackoverflow

The cost of passing a struct is proportional to its size. If the struct is smaller than a reference or the same size as a reference then passing its value will have the same cost as passing a reference.

If not, then you are correct; copying the struct might be more expensive than copying the reference. That's why the design guidelines say to keep a struct small.

(Note that when you call a method on a struct, the "this" is actually passed as a reference to the variable that contains the struct value; that's how you can write a mutable struct.)

There are potential performance gains when using structs, but as you correctly point out, there are potential performance losses as well. Structs are cheap (in both memory and time) to allocate and cheap to deallocate (in time), and cheap to copy if they are small. References are slightly more expensive in both memory and time to allocate, more expensive to deallocate, and cheap to copy. If you have a large number of small structs -- say, a million Point structs -- then it will be cheaper to allocate and deallocate an array with a million structs in it than an array with a million references to a million instances of a Point class.

But if the struct is big, then all that additional copying might be more expensive than the benefit you get from the more efficient allocation and deallocation. You have to look at the whole picture when doing performance analysis; don't make the "struct vs class" decision on the basis of performance without empirical data to back up that decision.

Posted before I saw this last post. Congrats on that Panasonic UB9000. That is a nice UHD player. Been wanting to put one in my system to replace the Sony UHD player I have. Since in Sony's infinite stupidity, made using Dolby Vision a menu selection, rather than an auto feature like it should be. Like everyone else in the world does.
Don't have a Panasonic rep anymore however. They all feel off the face of the Earth, when they ditched plasma years ago :(

I am not insisting that I know better. I just react negatively to people who do not provide reasonable explanation as to why something has to be or should be done. Here you are providing me an explanation and I appreciate it. This approach will work as long as people stay civil. When they get frustrated without reasonable explanation then you are going to draw a negative response from me. I do not like bullies no matter what they think or do know.

As far as the delays are concerned I have experimented with my equipment to find the best combinations to make things work. As I mentioned there is an HDMI issue that if solved with the next firmware upgrade will change everything. But if you have a suggestion that is reasonable, I am all ears. There is a good chance I have already tried it.

Does somebody have a PDF copy of "Programming in CCP" I can get. Mine disappeared.

Thank you for the explanation.

Is this true at the Quantum level as well?

Nope. It just says it's faster to dereference a memory address containing the data vs. copy the data to execute it. These aren't fast processors in these remotes.

It came down to the Panasonic UB9000 and Pioneer LX500. I chose the Panasonic. Both are good players.

Is it possible to add drivers for lighting? I would like to use the drivers for the Legrand Adorne lights. I downloaded the driver but I am not sure it is compatible with the MX series remotes?

MX don’t got no drivers only IR codes

Is there a separate manual for CCP Accelerator?