Subject:
|
Re: text location for apps and q?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:08:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Michael Ash writes:
> I just have to ask why you're doing this, just for the heck of it? I mean,
> the output device you're writing two can hold a whopping five characters
> at a time. I don't really see the benefit of changing to a more
for the output device thing, the lcd isn't the only device. sensors
and motors are also can be implemented as files.
> Fork might be interesting, but it seems like starting another thread would
> be simpler and take less memory.
well it's still just an idea, maybe the fork() will turn out as
rfork(). doesn't really matter now. but see my other reply.
imel
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) Ok, but why? Again, if you're just having fun, go for it, but don't expect it to be useful. Personally, the current interface is simple and highly functional, and a change to a file paradigm would just make it more complicated with no benefit. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
| (...) I just have to ask why you're doing this, just for the heck of it? I mean, the output device you're writing two can hold a whopping five characters at a time. I don't really see the benefit of changing to a more complicated interface. Of (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
