 | | Re: Final RFC on next legOS release (would have been legOS 0.2.6)
|
|
Concerning the name change, call for ideas and a vote, I would suggest that a NEW thread entitled similar to "Call for legOS name change" be created in lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos. The details when worked out and as outlined in the rlswork doc should (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
|
"Stephen M Moraco" <stephen_moraco@agilent.com> wrote in message news:GtKIM4.Gws@lugnet.com... (...) <snip> (...) Sounds good. Now, who would like to provide a second opinion? BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: is it possible to use a polarity switch with a RCX input?
|
|
(...) full (...) 100 (...) handy. (...) two (...) I'm not very familiar with electronics, but I am wondering whether the combination of two diodes with a resistor could solve the problem. I mean this: when current flows in a certain direction, it (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Deleting Programs
|
|
That would be great. Thanks Mark! Obviously, it will be prudent to make some or all of these optional at compile time... but I believe at least half of them are useful for most users. Anyone have an idea of priority on this addition? Should it be (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) This is exciting... <snip> (...) Good work on this! Since you have the config and simple swap we'll need to prove that both versions are still working and I'd like a 2nd opinion (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
