 | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Marco Correia
| | | | Andy, This won't happen if the Device_ID to Device_Friendly_Name mapping is as generic as "motor1", "motor2", "light1", "lightsensor1", "irdar1", "rotationsensor1", "rotationsensor2" and so on... Then, the *specific* Device_Friendly_Name to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Andrew J. Huang
| | | | | Marco, Yes, I agree that logical mappings will help the problem. But consider this example: You have motors with the friendly names of motor1.. motor20 You write a program and specify the associations: left arm = motor1, right=motor2, etc. I believe (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Marco Correia
| | | | | (...) hmmm... I prefer the method using a High_Level map in the source code or as a .h file ///.../// #IFDEF _TWINROBOTA_ #INCLUDE 'TwinRobotA_devmap.h' #ENDIF #IFDEF _TWINROBOTB_ #INCLUDE 'TwinRobotB_devmap.h' #ENDIF #IFDEF _TWINROBOTC_ #INCLUDE (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Andrew J. Huang
| | | | | Marco thought: (...) map in the (...) From a code writing point of view, defining macros that identify the motor is much nicer than having to list out the path to the motor. However, when you have to replace a dodgy motor on an individual, you'll (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory? —Marco Correia
| | | | | (...) Yes, you're right. :) The alternative would be to tweak the Device_ID/Friendly_Device_Name table in real-time, updating the new Device_ID. Then, the compile-time table with the Friendly_Device_Name...cific_Name would still valid. (...) Seconds (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
