|
|
 | | Re: Code Repository
|
| (...) Or perhaps a more general one sitting atop the others (integrationally or as a launching point). Because even when there's pseudocode for something, the actual implementation in, say, pbFORTH, may differ fundamentally from the implementation (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | RE: Code Repository
|
| Todd: Nice work on the sample page, very easy to use and browse. I would find this format very useful. Jeff Jeffrey Hazen jeffrey.hazen@northmill.net (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Code Repository
|
| (...) Since many algorithms apply across languages, what about a single repository for all code? (How about lugnet.robotics.rcx.code?) True, it would increase the noise-to-signal ratio for many, but it would Keep It Simple. Also, I favor follow-ups (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Code Repository
|
| (...) Since many algorithms apply across languages, what about a single repository for all code? (How about lugnet.robotics.rcx.code?) True, it would increase the noise-to-signal ratio for many, but it would Keep It Simple. Also, I favor follow-ups (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Code Repository
|
| (...) As LDraw enthusiasts have discovered (via the lugnet.cad.dat.* hierarchy), having special newsgroups for these sorts of things really makes it nice to follow discussions that pop up as well, since they're simply lower-level nodes in the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Code Repository
|
| (...) Hi Brian, Yea, if someone wanted to be an editor of the /robotics/rcx/nqc/ area of the www.lugnet.com website, a code repository would be very easy indeed to set up on LUGNET. For example, John VanZwieten is editor of the /cad/datsville/ area (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Code Repository
|
| Anyone interested in setting up a code repository for NQC? It could be a place to look for cut and paste routines that you could use in your project. If you had a cool piece of code that had some reuse value, then you could upload it to the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| 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)
| | | | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| 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, 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
|
| 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
|
| 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)
| | | | | NQC 2 Request
|
| 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: RcxCC downloads
|
| I wrote first something like "It seems that this NQC newsgroup is not very active, but that's probably because NQC is 99.999% bug free and so is RCXCC...". So i was definitely not asking more traffic or so, simply looking at what has already been (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: RcxCC downloads
|
| (...) I want to second that. I missed the NQC online help in version 3 also. It's nice to have a quick reference guide handy. Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: RcxCC downloads
|
| (...) Your version 3 is also great! When NQC 2 is released will the NQC help be put back in? I thought it was real handy addition on those long nights. --- DonC donc@cccd.edu (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RcxCC downloads
|
| Just because people want some more traffic in this newsgroup and to quantify the statement of Dave Baum, RcxCC version 2.3 was downloaded close to 3000 times from my web site up to now. Mark Overmars (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: decoding a message sent by an RCX
|
| (...) I second that! I tried using the "native" language and its limitations baffled me. I never got a program downloaded. I jumped straight to NQC and have done several now. Good work Dave! DLC (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
