 | | ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
|
Hello All, In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, Dave Baum wrote (almost two years ago, Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:34:56 GMT -- your words are cherished, Dave! :-): (...) [...] (...) Well, I am not (yet) a Java programmer, but try to become one, and would like to (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Implementation of Installable Timers
|
|
Iain McInnes wrote: [snip] (...) Great idea! (...) In your implementation, would it be possible for the client task to be killed (in the case of a run-away task)... causing the struct to be deallocated... while the struct is still in the linked (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Points to: 'Implementation of Installable Timers'
|
|
Hi, ppl. I posted this one in the wrong place :0 (URL) Enjoy ! Iain. (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Points to 'Design by Contract'
|
|
Hi, Folks, I posted some stuff on an assert() macro - in the wrong place - (D'oH). The thread is here: (URL) Enjoy ! Iain. (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Design by Contract (long post)
|
|
(...) I agree it seems to be the wrong way round. That's the standard implementation. NDEBUG seems to stand for "No debug". One advantage of making it negative, is that you get the assert()s if you don't do anything (ie dont define NDEBUG). BTW, (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
