|
|
 | | RE: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) This might be a good idea. The pbForth thing is working out well too. Maybe a C to FORTH translator would be useful. In the other hand, making a custom bytecode interpreter means having to write the interpreter and support it on different (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wish
|
| Inline functions are by their very nature surpressed. Also, most control structures and calculations that can be evaluated at compile time are eliminated. I thought about surpressing tasks and subs, but then decided not to. The problem is that tasks (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) To me, one of the important features of such a thing would be compatibility with the existing firmware. Otherwise, why not just use LegOS? (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| If anyone is seriously considering this I'd ask two things... 1) Have you considered porting the p-code interpreter used by Interactive C or something like a stripped down Java bytecode interpreter instead? The idea here would be that the RCX (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Yeah, this was discussed way back at the beginning of the reverse-engineering effort. It's something I'd like to see too. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
