 | | Re: New RcxCC revision posted
|
|
(...) Well I'm glad you apologized. :) I just finished downloading and testing your previous version only to find that there is even a newer one. I really like the new editing features BTW. The multilevel undo and the line numbers are a great (...) (24 years ago, 14-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: New RcxCC revision posted
|
|
(...) Okay, another round of fixes/modifications. Sorry I'm making these changes so fast. I am *really* interested in hearing from anyone who is trying out my revised RcxCC, by the way. :-) Anyway, this version (available from the link above) (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Which way is faster?
|
|
By "fastest", I assume you mean the smallest worst case latency between a condition happening and the RCX responding to it. Option #2 has the drawback that while the RCX is responding to one condition, it won't be looking for the other ones. So the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Which way is faster?
|
|
I want to know which way is faster: 1. Use three tasks to watch sensors task watch1() { while (true) { if () { .. } } } task watch2() { while (true) { if () { .. } } } task watch3() { while (true) { if () { .. } } } 2. Use one task with multi (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | New RcxCC revision posted
|
|
Anyone who is interested in trying my revised RcxCC can find a copy at: (URL) just uploaded another revision that implements several new features: 1) command line switches: /? or /help = display a help message on startup before continuing /COM=N = (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
