|
|
 | | Re: Design by Contract (long post)
|
| (...) D'oH! Thanks, Tim. I was very careful composing the original post, but added the example in as an after thought - Well spotted. Iain. (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, FTX)
| | | | | RE: NQC's future
|
| (...) Ha Ha, very funny :-) Seriously, Philippe, why not give pbForth a try? I know that NQC works great on both the Spybots and the RCX, and even Cybermaster. But if you're looking for speed, higher precision, lots of variables and generally more (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) Something I'd like to see implemented in NQC is a mixed-mode multiply/divide, similar to the */ operator in Forth, with an intermediary 32bits product. That would greatly ease precision calculations without requiring major structural (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: Design by Contract (long post)
|
| (...) <delurk> The first definition of assert is the correct, standard definition. However there is a slight boo boo in the original post in the line: assert (myptr = malloc (sizeof (mystruct)); Which will delete the malloc when NDEBUG is defined. (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, FTX)
| | | | | USB Tower range
|
| Hi, I recently bought the RCX2.0 and I am a little disappointed at the range for the USB tower. Though configured to be at long range I doubt I can implement a range greater then 5 or 6 feet. Is this normal.? Am I missing something.? Paul Reedman (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
|
