 | | Re: Ultrasonic proximity sensor
|
|
(...) back up alarms for dogcatchers and photographers... (22 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
|
(...) Which is why we have C++. With memory constructors and destructors, quite complex resources can be automatically and cleanly free'd up on exit from a function. ---...--- Steve Baker ---...--- HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
|
Rob Limbaugh wrote: > I find that GOTO is a very handy way to bypass code to test some > alternate code in high-level languages. Nope - that's why we have #ifdef/#endif > It is also a command that is > easy to match to a machine language code of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Ultrasonic proximity sensor
|
|
(...) sorry to dissappoint you but i made that up just for a laugh. i'm glad you got a laugh out of it! Michael (22 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Are there GOTO statements in NQC?
|
|
(...) This exact same argument can be applied to high-level languages where you dynamically allocate memory or other resources that need to be released before leaving the function. While I agree that forcing people to have only one exit point at all (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
