 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b3 released
|
|
Will this ver. support the Scout ? Fully? thanks. -Mike (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: identifiers in NQC
|
|
(...) There isn't any practical limit - symbol storage is allocated dynamically and the lexer grows its buffer as needed, so identifiers may be as long as you want (until you run out of memory) and every character is significant. This isn't the most (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b3 released
|
|
Linux builds of NQC are now available in tar.gz and RPM format at: <URL://www.mattdm.or...orms/nqc/> including the new 2.1.b3, as well as the stable 2.0.2 release and some docs packaged nicely. To the best of my knowledge, these binaries work (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b3 released
|
|
(...) Works great with RcxCC now! Uwe (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | identifiers in NQC
|
|
Usually there is some compiler rule that states: identifiers must be unique within the first _____ characters. That is, long variable and other identifier names may be allowed to be quite long, but they must be unique somewhere in the first X number (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b3 released
|
|
Will try to have linux builds/rpms up at <URL://www.mattdm.or...torms/nqc> (I'm considering setting up nqc.mattdm.org as a more easy-to-remember URL...) within the next few days. Would be right away, but I'm on vacation and away from good net (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.1 b3 released
|
|
No new features - just a few fixes and tweaks: * output files now default to current directory rather than next to source * fixed the __SCOUT bug * fixed the RcxCC problem - two part solution: 1) trailing directory delimiters are now optional on -I (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Help with rotation sensors
|
|
(...) You could probably change the first line to while (SENSOR_1 < target_distance) and it should work fine. Since you want to keep the two rotation sensor values (and hence the two wheel distances) equal, each sensor will individually measure the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Help with rotation sensors
|
|
Hi all, I'm new to programing so this may seem like a silly question. I'm using two rotation sensors with the program below to eliminate drift caused by different motor speeds. Is it possible to break this loop when a certain distance is reached? I (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Its actually an unfortunate side effect of an upgrade to my compiler...for a more detailed explanation see the tread starting here: (URL) Baum (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed solution to RcxCC / NQC problem
|
|
(...) Your proposal is great. Looks like the very best way to go. Uwe (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
I tried it and it doesn't work. Instead of compiling NQC displays his "help" page with the compiler options in the dos box. :-( TZS Dave Baum schrieb in Nachricht ... (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) Cool, thanks. (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Proposed solution to RcxCC / NQC problem
|
|
This is my proposed solution to the problem with the NQC beta and RcxCC. As a quick recap, the problem is that RcxCC uses an exec line which has one quoted argument ending with a backslash: nqc -E"temp.log" -L"temp.lst" -I"C:\NQC\CC\" temp.nqc The (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
I parallel two motors frequently with no ill effects. There is no generation taking place. It will use more battery current for the two motors than it would for one, but it is also doing more work. -- Bob Fay rfay@we.mediaone.net The Shop (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
(...) I was just trying out having 4 motors to power 4 wheels (one per wheel) and I saw this effect. I had the two motors on the right side both attached to output A and the two motors on the left side both attached to input C. But now I am worried (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(I didn't have time today to check with VC++ and VB as I intended.) (...) Mhm, I see. This makes sense. The behavior of VC++ still strikes me as odd, but anyway if it's so, then your conclusion is obviously right, I'd say. Uwe (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) My test was a program like this: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char**argv) { int i; for(i=0; i<argc; ++i) printf("<%s>\n", argv[i]); } I built it under both Metrowerks and VC++. Then I called the program with various command lines to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Absolutely! I guess I misunderstood. Cheers, Ben. -- SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I don't deny that this is the way C does it. But nevertheless, when you pass parameters *on the Win command line*, shouldn't you follow the behavior that is de-facto standard (even if "incorrect" from a C view) for *that* OS, irresepective of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
