Subject:
|
Re: MacNQC 2.1b1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:00:39 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1855 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <38DE0D34.E9CE8B55@gmx.de>, Ralf Krause <rkra@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Dave and all the others,
>
> I like NQC and MacNQC (since they have started ... ).
>
> I 've found a switch in the preference window to get the NQC 1.0 APIs.
> Does this mean I get all only the language definition of NQC 1.0 or do I
> get NQC 1.3 ??
Actually, the compiler itself is still the 2.x compiler (you get switch
statements at 2.1, etc). However, there are a few 'deprecated'
syntaxes, such as using 'inline' rather than 'void' to indicate an
inline function, that generate warnings and/or errors in 2.x mode, but
work fine in 1.x mode.
The big difference is the API file which defines the different 'system'
functions. In 1.0 mode, you get the old API (rcx1.nqh), otherwise you
get the new one (rcx2.nqh).
>
> Without finding any rcx1.nqh file or rcx2.nqh file in my MacNQC folder I
> think that a mac user can't see or change the macros of NQC. If I want
> to see it I should have a look into nqc-mpw-2.1.r1 or nqc-win-2.1.r1.
> But if I want to change them ...?
With the command line version of NQC, you can disable the system include
file (-n option), which would then let you define anything else you
wanted. However, there isn't any such provision in MacNQC. I could add
a preference to let you select a custom system nqh file. Would this
help?
As an aside, I'm going to stop releasing the rcx.nqh files....instead
I'll be adding options to nqc and MacNQC to emit the system include
file. That way people who don't care about the file won't ever see it,
but those who do can always generate the exact file from within the
compiler. This will also simplify the release process and eliminate
opportunities for mistakes.
>
> Is there any chance to get MacNQC for the smaller 680xx macs? Then I
> could use them for some jobs with the RCX.
68K isn't a problem, but old systems are...MacNQC is built with
Metrowerks PowerPlant and uses a couple of classes that depend on
Appearance Manager. I haven't really scoped the impact of a
non-appearance manager build. In my experience, 68K systems tend to run
older versions of the OS (pre appearance manager), so I never built a
68K MacNQC.
However, the MPW version of NQC is FAT, and MPW still runs fine on older
systems. I know its not as convenient as MacNQC, but it is functional.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | MacNQC 2.1b1
|
| Hello Dave and all the others, I like NQC and MacNQC (since they have started ... ). I 've found a switch in the preference window to get the NQC 1.0 APIs. Does this mean I get all only the language definition of NQC 1.0 or do I get NQC 1.3 ?? (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
