 | | FW: IR mode
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 6:07 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: IR mode (...) I wonder if these will work? ;---...--- ; IRMODE_HI ( -- ) M_CODE(9,``"IRMODE_H...HI,_SLINK) MOV.W (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: New pbFORTH
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 5:07 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: New pbFORTH MARKER seems to work, but I haven't tested it much as my debug runs more often end up in a lockup, (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: pbFORTH and MARKER
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 7:16 PM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: pbFORTH and MARKER (...) Great news. I don't actually need it yet (or enough). I am stillexperimenting with (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: New pbFORTH
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 5:08 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: New pbFORTH I have it now, thank you. I've figured out how POWER_GET works, but not the return values. From (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: New pbFORTH
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, May 01, 1999 12:07 PM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: New pbFORTH (...) Unfortunately my mailer could not decode the MIME attachment. Could you send it UUENCODEd? (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: pbFORTH
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 2:31 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: pbFORTH (...) Thanks for that, I can't try it until tomorrow because the machine wth the IR tower on is in (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: Ir transmission
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 6:07 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: Ir transmission (...) To answer the question, I would say do it as core (quicker download). I think we agree (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: multitasker
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 2:31 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: multitasker (...) Excellent news. (...) You can have our SpeedBot as a demo program (as soon as I get it to (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: Ir transmission
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk] Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 2:31 AM To: Ralph Hempel Subject: Re: Ir transmission (...) Well, I don't do realtime stuff (until now), in fact what I do (simulation) is almost (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | FW: pbFORTH and MARKER
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: Ralph Hempel [mailto:rhempel@bmts.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 12:55 PM To: John Cooper Subject: pbFORTH and MARKER John, I have discovered yet another bug in the CREATE DOES> of pbFORTH and fixed it. Now (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Forward of pbFORTH debug sessions
|
|
John Cooper and I have exchanged numerous emails on the progression of pbFORTH and he has agreed to share them with the group. I guess we should have always discussed on the group, but once I just hit Reply instead of ReplyToAll and that was the end (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) Single-stepping through instructions would be a mode offered by the interpreter, and wouldn't require any breakpoints to be set. I suppose what the debugging information could contain is, instead of a list of valid breakpoints, a list of (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) You have 4 7-segment characters which could display a 4 character text string (albeit with some of the characters being different case and some confusion between characters). (...) Adding limited functions to check the memory usage without (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) Sure, but that's what zero padding is for. Since the opcode is IR-only, you don't care too much about length. The only length restriction comes from the second digit of the opcode, assuming you're using the ROM to receive incoming IR data. (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) I was not intending to limit its functionality to that performed by the RCX with the standard firmware loaded. I did say "when no new features are being exploited". The idea of flashing an identifier associated with the current program may not (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) While I agree that it should be similar, I think it may need some minor modifications to make it truly useful. For example, I would like to be able to control the motors without having to load a program or use a host computer. It would be nice (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Ir transmission
|
|
(...) I can't get EMIT to work, in NQC I do this: SendMessage(255); // Flash Sleep(3); ThisRaw = RAW_LIGHT; and the raw light sensor reading has big spikes for IR reflections. but: [ HEX ] FF EMIT 30 msWait RawLight LIGHT? does not, I think that (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) In light of some of your points raised earlier and consideration since I first brought it up, I can see that bytecode level compatibility is not strictly required. By Look & Feel, I refer only to the observable behaviour of the RCX, not the (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) What do you mean by end-user? Does keeping the end-user look and feel mean keeping the existing opcodes intact? You seemed to have mentioned this as a goal before but maintaining just the "look and feel" might no longer mean that. Also, you (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Some clarification
|
|
(...) I was not suggesting creating a potential for an L&F lawsuit from Lego by duplicating their Mindstorms product for Windows or some other PC platform, I was suggesting imitating the look & feel of their firmware on the RCX itself. (Not that I (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
