 | | NQC 2 Request —David Warnock
|
| | | Hi, I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and OnRevFor(motors). Regards Dave (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea? Dave Baum (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Don Cock
|
| | | | | | Dave, I like the finite coltrol of the motors myself but can understand the request. It may encourage the "younger" programmers to use the language. Does adding the commands go against your move to get closer to the API? The user could always create (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | | (...) No, that's not a big deal, I don't mind a "superset". Most of the NQC 2.0 changes were to make terminology consistent between RCX Code and NQC, etc. Dave (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Joel Shafer
|
| | | | | Why not just use a macro instead of expanding the language? (...) Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | | That's all that really happens when I add new calls anyway. Anything that even remotely looks like a function call is either an inline function of a macro, and not part of the language itself. I guess the real question is if its appropriate to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —Dave Baum
|
| | | | (...) If anyone wants to add these functions into their own code... void OnFwdFor(const int m, const int &t) { Fwd(m); OnFor(m, t); } void OnRevFor(const int m, const int &t) { Rev(m); OnFor(m, t); } These should be efficient - everything will be (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request —David Warnock
|
| | | | Dave, Thanks for all the comments in the thread. As I have not looked at the API supplied by the firmware I did not realise that the NQC api was such a close match. Adding the functions as you have suggested is a very neat solution. It is nice to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
