|
|
 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| I was jut wondering, has anybody tried to implement a "better RCX-code"? It must be possible to write something very similar to RCX-code in LegOS, only faster and implementing the "missing" array structures and more variables. Mayby compatible with (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC wish
|
| Hello, It would be great to have NCQ doing dead code suppression before downloading it to the RCX. Any function, task,... not referenced in the program should not be compiled and sent to the RCX. It would help to save memory and download time don't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Implementation of ## gets pretty nasty - at least within the current pre-processor design. I'll look at the C spec again, but I'm pretty sure ## forces a re-tokenization. In the current design of NQC, tokenization happens before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Great! (...) Vlad, that's funny. Immediately after seeing Dave's reply, I decided to make such macros myself. But I got disturbed and couldn't do it today anymore. Since you seem to have done it already, I'll just wait to see yours :-) (...) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) I am sure more people than me are looking forward to that! About the "smaller" integer variables, I have put together a couple of macros that simulate an array of packed "small" integers, any bit size works, but power-of-2 sizes do not waste (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
