 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite, err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So, to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, I don't know "official" rules nor did I find a place where to look them up. Nevertheless, I can only think that this whole escaping stuff is not compliant with normal, expected Win32 behavior. The backslash is the standard (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
According to that elementary physics, you are converting power into heat as part of this process. Usually, when downgearing an engine, the intention is to have more power at the slower speed (for better climbing, lifting, etc.). This will not be the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) the exec (...) The answer isn't pretty.... As near as I can tell (sorry, not much of a Windows expert), the command line gets passed in its entirety to the executable, which then is responsible for parsing it into separate arguments. For the (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) I just added the error check to nqc. I haven't changed the directory yet, though. Using the source directory was strictly from laziness. Assuming there aren't massive objections, I'll switch to using the current directory. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) The same problem was already present with the b1 (I had asked about it in this newsgroup but got no reply). Also, I don't think it is related to the parameters. I have now checked the exec call of RcxCC with a debugger and found this is the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Hmmm - the only reason I can think of for this would be if RcxCC is using one of the deprecated options that were removed in 2.1 (-o, -e, and -s which were replaced by -O, -E, and -S). If Mark can confirm which (if any) of these options are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
(...) It's offtopic in .nqc, but not in lugnet.robotics in general. (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
I think that's a really good idea. I tried it, and found out that the motor recieving power spins slower than the motor you spin. This is about 4:3. This could be a really good speed reduction technique that doesn't use gears, or you could power (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) I don't want the outfile to go where the executable is -- I want it to go to the current working directory. So nqc goes in /usr/local/bin, and I can run it from "binaries" directory on source files that might be located elsewhere (the test.nqc (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
