remove unused code (#3622)

[adrpo]

There are some components defined that are not used in the blocks or functions. This PR removes them.

[HansOlsson]

Removing protected parameters (even if unused) seems problematic with current versioning rules.

[beutlich]

Removing protected parameters (even if unused) seems problematic with current versioning rules.

Indeed. It is not covered by conversion rules. For that reason, we mentioned every removed component as backward-compatibility breaking change in the release notes and require a new major version.

[christiankral]

So we could remove the protected parameters from functions, as these quantities cannot be accessed from outside and keep them in models and blocks. Additionally, all commented code fragments shall be removed.

[christiankral]

See https://github.com/adrpo/Modelica/pull/1

[christiankral]

@AHaumer @adrpo Would you agree to better document the code lines? I understand that @ahaumer wants to keep the commented code as it represents an alternative (inverse) representation of the used equations.

Example: Change

  Real RotationMatrix[2, 2]={{+cos(-angle),-sin(-angle)},{+sin(-angle),+
      cos(-angle)}};
  //Real InverseRotator[2,2] = {{+cos(+angle),-sin(+angle)},{+sin(+angle),+cos(+angle)}};
  ...
  //u = InverseRotator*y;

to

  Real RotationMatrix[2, 2]={{+cos(-angle),-sin(-angle)},{+sin(-angle),+
      cos(-angle)}};
  // Alternative equivalent implementation:
  // Real InverseRotator[2,2] = {{+cos(+angle),-sin(+angle)},{+sin(+angle),+cos(+angle)}};
  ...
  // Alternative equivalent implementation:
  // u = InverseRotator*y;

[adrpo]

Is OK from my side, I thought it was some left over code, but if this is documentation, of course we should keep it. @AHaumer just let us know how you want it.

[AHaumer]

I'd prefer to keep the comments as internal documentation - thanks.

[christiankral]

I'd prefer to keep the comments as internal documentation - thanks.

@AHaumer OK, but shall we add

// Alternative equivalent implementation:

as proposed above to make the documentation character more clear to the users?

[AHaumer]

@AHaumer OK, but shall we add

// Alternative equivalent implementation:

as proposed above to make the documentation character more clear to the users?

Fine with me.

[arunkumar-narasimhan]

@AHaumer @christiankral, we have made the Alternative equivalent implementation comment in relevant places. Could you please review?