| | Re: Having trouble with -D option
|
|
Thanks for the quick response. "It's fixed in the next release, which is due in a week or so" qualifies for excellent support, IMHO. :) My workaround is a REXX exec rewritting a small header file on the fly before each compile. -- Mark Haye, haye (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Re: Having trouble with -D option
|
|
Yes, I noticed that too, but I'm trying to program multiple RCXs with the same source, and the symbol is meant to represent the RCX's id, so it must have multiple values. Thanks anyway for the quick response. -- Mark Haye, haye (at) us (dot) ibm (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Drive R/C Servos with the RCX and pbForth (long)
|
|
Hi again everyone! A few days ago I announced that I had developed a nice little circuit using easily available parts that would let you connect servos to the RCX - with no external batteries or microprocessors or anything! At that time, I said that (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
|
| | Re: scout.nqh no longer necessary?
|
|
(...) Correct. Initially (2.1 b1) I put the Scout support in a separate include file because I wasn't ready to merge all of the changes together. As of b2, the compiler's built-in system include file includes RCX, Cybermaster, and Scout APIs. Dave (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Re: LNP Example please
|
|
*Embarrased look* sorry I shouldn't of missed that.. Sorry to hassle you but I am stuck yet again. The lnptest program just records collision after collision. I have no other IR devices in the area (as far as I know anyway) It doesn't display any of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
| | Re: scout.nqh no longer necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes, this is true as of 2.1.b2. (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | scout.nqh no longer necessary?
|
|
It looks like Scout programs no longer need `#include "scout.nqh"', and the file has been removed from the NQC beta distribution. Is that correct? I've been confusing someone new to NQC because I didn't realize this :( --Ben (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Re: Having trouble with -D option
|
|
You found a bug - NQC is actually defining D to be the tokens =1, which then leads to a lot of confusion later on. Basically I bungled the pointer math. I fixed the source so the next release (2.1 final) should be fine. I'll probably release 2.1 in (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Re: Having trouble with -D option
|
|
(...) Same with 2.1b3. FWIW, #ifdef D task main() {} #endif works as expected. D is getting defined, just not to 1. (Or to any number.) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
| | Having trouble with -D option
|
|
If I compile this program (named d.nqc): /* nqc program */ #if (D == 1) task main() {} #endif with the command: nqc -DD=1 d.nqc I get the following error: # Error: syntax error in expression File "d.nqc" ; line 2 # #if (D == 1) # ^ #---...--- # 1 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|