|
|
 | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| (...) No, that's not a big deal, I don't mind a "superset". Most of the NQC 2.0 changes were to make terminology consistent between RCX Code and NQC, etc. Dave (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| That's all that really happens when I add new calls anyway. Anything that even remotely looks like a function call is either an inline function of a macro, and not part of the language itself. I guess the real question is if its appropriate to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| Dave, I like the finite coltrol of the motors myself but can understand the request. It may encourage the "younger" programmers to use the language. Does adding the commands go against your move to get closer to the API? The user could always create (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| Why not just use a macro instead of expanding the language? (...) Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea? Dave Baum (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
