Subject:
|
RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:11:48 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
"Marco Correia" <Marco.Correia@soporcel.pt>
|
Reply-To:
|
<marco.correia@soporcel#AntiSpam#.pt>
|
Viewed:
|
1021 times
|
| |
|
|
> Andrew J. Huang:
> 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 have to re-map the motor name
> (revise the .h) and then recompile. If you're on
> Mars, or at a standalone (no reprogramming)
> competition, a recompile and download isn't
> convenient.
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/MOC_Specific_Name
would still valid.
> A route to the motor isn't so bad since it can be
> encoded as a macro just the same:
>
> #define RightHand_Finger1 down_neck, \
> first_right_appendage, \
> past_rotator_cuff, \
> past_elbow-joint, \
> first_daisy chain
Seconds after I sent the msg, I thought about this too.
Then, no matter the method used, the source can always use MOC specific
device names, through macros.
hmmm... but aren't we replacing a Device System with a Node System ?
Wouldn't we still need a Node_ID/Friendly_Node_Name map ?
> However, the main point is that you can hide an
> arbitrary amount of code ugliness.
Yes, that is true.
mc.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | RE: RCX & RIS, a fading glory?
|
| 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
