Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2 Request
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:27:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
DONC@CCCD.antispamEDU
|
Viewed:
|
3741 times
|
| |
|
|
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 a macro for the command.
---
DonC
donc@cccd.edu
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
