 | | Re: VB Upload Problem
|
|
(...) Variables are 'type' 0, but there's a disagreement between NQC and VB about which var is in the log. I haven't heard of any problems with NQC in this respect, but I can test it out a bit and see. ... (...) At the bytecode level, the datalog is (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: VB Upload Problem
|
|
Ok i'm lame. i had the vb uploading code in a random code module instead of a module specifically for the click of the upload button. anyway, now the data comes up in the vb list box, but it is all screwy. for example, for some data that i just (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Mac programmers
|
|
(...) I would LOVE to. Much to my chagrin, I don't have the time. My research project has filled all time left (Behavior Based Robotics, believe it or not!). (...) Oh man, the fun stuff. (...) Figures, now when I can actually add some value to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Mac programmers
|
|
I'm out here, and I do PP stuff, but I still don't have a RIS. (If that matters!) If it's fun GUI widget work then I wouldn't mind putting some time into it. -Erik (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.2 now in beta
|
|
(...) I'll try to get Linux stuff built this weekend. (We're in the midst of moving, so it might be til Monday.) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Call for Mac programmers
|
|
MacNQC needs some work - there are numerous enhancements that could be made if I only had a little time to spend on it. However, NQC has grown to take up more and more of my programming time, so MacNQC has largely been neglected. Are there any Mac (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.2 now in beta
|
|
See (URL) for more information. Dave Baum (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) I thought about this for a while, when I was thinking about "obvert". In one sense, "invert" does imply that inversing again will revert (*grin*), but I don't believe that this meaning is implicit. There is another sense which simply means "to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) The problem I have with ForwardOutput() and ReverseOutput() is that the terms 'forward' and 'reverse' already have a meaning - specifically they refer to motor directions... Fwd(OUT_A); Rev(OUT_B); If you then 'reverse' the global direction... (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RE: global output control
|
|
(...) Ummm, how about... ReverseOutput(const int outs); // global reverse ForwardOutput(const int outs); // global fwd Reverse kind of implies invert, but I don't think that will matter to many folks... Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng ---...--- Check (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
