To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 26263
26262  |  26264
Subject: 
Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:27:18 GMT
Viewed: 
5406 times
  
In lugnet.robotics, Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:

Often you'll find multiple modules which cooperate outside
the specification.  They can go anywhere in the layout that
two or three modules can go in line.

   If I understand what you mean, yes, you can make an arrangement of modules
that satisfys the GBC spec input/output as a whol, even though they don't
individually. That's fine (like Rafe's "supermodule", for instance). But then
the individual parts (submodules) aren't compliant, and so you end up with
effectively one very big module. No problem, although significantly more
difficult to fit into a large, complex, and every-evolving GBC (probably one of
the reasons I keep trying to make smaller yet more flexible modules - they are
*much* easier to use come set-up day).

--
Brian Davis



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
 
John Brost writes: > The idea of the spec was so that EVERY module could be put ANYWHERE > in the GBC and it would all work. In the past, this has been bent > so that modules that can't handle large batches are not placed > downstream of a batch- (...) (18 years ago, 10-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)

43 Messages in This Thread:
















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR