 | | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
Have you considered adding the firmware build version to that symbol or to a new one? __RCX = 2 __FIRMWARE=3.21 This would facilitate creation of portable, work-around code that would accomodate an end-user who hasn't updated their firmware (or has (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Just a long term tickler. Long term, it should come to pass that this is not true, and that moving a group is not an impossible thing to do. ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Yes, I think that would be a good move. (...) I'd prefer not to proliferate too many newsgropus. Personally I don't think the nqc traffic is presently so high that people need to filter it based on target. Odds are that this would even cause a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree with the approach to using __RCX for conditional compile - that's really why its there. I had thought about adding some of the functions (SetSensor() etc.) as no-ops in the Scout API, but this really didn't feel right to me. I (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) Very True. Does anyone know when downloading to Scout with RCXCC will be ready? Dean -- Coin-Op's For Sale!: (URL) Lego Workshop: (URL) Lego Club: (URL) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
