 | | Re: Visual NQC 2001
|
|
I have downloaded and installed Beta 2. I am having a problem that I had with beta 1. When I "Compile" I get a "Runtime Error '380' Invalid Property Value". Am I alone in this problem? If so, what does it mean? Is something missing from my Win98? -- (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: sleep efficientcy
|
|
(...) value (...) There are two issues: 1 do you want to do anything while waiting, 2 how quick do you want to respond to the event. In both cases using an event is better. You can do something else until the event happens (synchronization issuses (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Visual NQC 2001
|
|
I've fixed a lot of problems thanks to your testing and reporting. Beta relase 2 is now available on (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Confusion regarding the POWER_OFF command.
|
|
I'm a little confused with the POWER_OFF word. From reading the documentation, I would have though the following would work: POWER_INIT : test BEGIN DO-WORK POWER_OFF 0 UNTIL ; When 'test' is executed, both 'DO-WORK' and 'POWER_OFF' are executed, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: sleep efficientcy
|
|
(...) value (...) Ross, I can't speak about efficiency - I dont know enogh about embedded programming, but I've had better results using wait_event. I've tried both msleep() and yield() in a loop, and just calling wait_event with a function that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | sleep efficientcy
|
|
Hi again, i would like to know which is more efficient in code? having a while loop which is checking for a condition to be true and sleeping for an arbitary value while it is not, or using a wait_event statement passing a function pointer to a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Parallel sensor problem
|
|
(...) That isn't the problem. I reversed the sensor on one RCX, and they both showed it as being constantly pressed, so that must be the wrong polarity. But I also tried moving it from input 2 to 3. Works fine. Same programs, everything, it works in (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) after (...) old (...) That's true. I've noticed it. I was speaking of PC implementation. (...) semaphore (...) in a (...) instruction (...) wait (...) of the (...) shouldn't (...) Ok, perfect. I vote for the semaphore implementation. I also (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: C++ OverHead
|
|
Hi, The answer here depends on your coding style. If you are using non-derived concrete classes, with simple member data and the default constructor/destructor, then it costs ~10-20 bytes/class. If you are using non-derived concrete classes, with (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Rossz Vamos-Wentworth writes: ... (...) hmmm... did your wife figure out what vamos means... you might have to change that one too :-) sorry, but now I don't remember the question about the motor speed (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
