|
|
 | | ...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)
|
|
