 | | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) We must have the same twisted sense of humor since the necessity of putting it in the FAQ pretty much tipped the scales for me. ObvertOutput() it is! Dave p.s. We'll see if I'm still laughing when people start e-mailing me about it. (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) It's a bit obscure, but a perfectly good word -- the opposite of invert. It means to turn something forward, as opposed to invert, which is to turn something backward. (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) I never heard that word before. Jürgen (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) That sounds like a reason to use it right there. :) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) Yes it is a great description of the actual function, however I feel the word is a bit obscure and that's why I hesitate about using it. That's what the "not sure" is...Obvert technically means the right thing, but perhaps isn't obvious to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) PS -- I'm not really as fanatical about this as I may seem. I'll be happy either way. (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) It's a perfectly good word! (It's not in M-W, but OED has it. And M-W has "obverse"....) :) And, it describes exactly what you want. (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) I was thinking of RestoreOutput myself, but then I was wondering if it implied restoring the enable/disable state as well. I'd like to keep the calls 'paired' as much as possible... EnableOutput / DisableOutput InvertOutput / ???Output I know (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
Just had to add my two cents worth; NegateOutput RestoreOutput JB (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) What's wrong with Obvert? (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) How about DontInvertOutput? Not beautiful, but IMHO clearer. Jürgen (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8kshgc.sof.....bu.edu... (...) first, (...) It won't do any good to call Revert without Invert though... I guess one confusion with Revert is that it wouldn't switch the output back to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) The only problem is that "revert" implies that invert must be called first, and I don't think that is the case. (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8kpub3.v5a.....bu.edu... (...) "RevertOutput". (...) I think RevertOutput is fine. I actually wonder how often that call will end being used in user's programs? The InvertOutput command (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) ObvertOutput? (24 years ago, 18-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | global output control
|
|
The Scout and RCX 2.0 both support what lego calls "global" control of the outputs. At first I thought the global calls somehow took precedence over normal calls, so I simply made global versions of all the output calls in NQC. However, after (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) <snip> Dave, Been out of town, and will look more at your messages this weekend. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gordon (24 years ago, 15-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) Getting things like Timer[0] = 100; to work while still allowing if (Timer(0) < 100) { } is a lot harder than I had anticipated, so I'm punting on array-style setting of the various RCX source (such as Timer(), UpperLimit(), etc). There are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) Not really a stack problem, just a control flow issue. On suggestion for the event handling was something like this: begin_events(EVENT_MASK, event_handler); // put code that executes during event monitoring here end_events event_handler: // (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) #3, which was the approach you took. (...) I think what I liked about the approach in pBrick script was that it was fairly like coding a microcontroller in assembler: set up an interrupt vector and then include a label and code for the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
