 | | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
Dave Baum schreef: (...) This looks a bit confusing, the alternative looks more logical to me. (...) Now this I can understand :-) Looks awesome. (24 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
(...) Handling a range should't be too tough - perhaps like this #pragma start [count] where count is assumed to be 1 if not present // reserve location 1 #pragma 1 // reserve locations 5,6 and 7 #pragma 5 3 --- The alternative would be #pragma (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
Dave Baum schreef: (...) It looks perfectly logical to me. Will it be possible to reserve a range or do we need to reserve each location separately? No need for an extra keyword indeed. (It's hard enough already. Well I guess part of that comes from (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
The fact that in RCX2 the counters are overlapped with global variables has brought about an interesting problem. How should a programmer indicate to the NQC compiler that a certain RCX variable location is to be left untouched (not assigned to any (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Differences between RCX 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0?
|
|
(...) From what I've gathered: 1.0 to 1.5 Removed the power adapter board. Less components on the board. 1.0 to 2.0 from what I gathered a slightly newer board with a 32k ROM instead of the 16K in the 1.0. (The 1.0 is designed to hold a 32k ROM. As (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
