Subject:
|
Re: ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:04:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5232 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <Hr70p5.1zoM@lugnet.com>,
"Martin Erdelen" <martin.erdelenNO@SPAMkolumbus.fi> wrote:
> So, before I delve deeper into this (and get lost), I wonder: Will a new NQC
> compiler (2.5.2.3), with or without the "-1" option, at all produce .rcx code
> which the old pbsim can still understand, or have the versions diverged too
> far
> perhaps?
It's been a long time since I looked at any of this, but I don't think
the version of the NQC compiler is an issue, nor is the -1 option. The
.rcx file format has been pretty stable for a long time. The -1 allows
old source programs to be compiled, but the generated bytecodes (in the
.rcx file) are the same. If NQC isn't generating error messages, then
you don't need the -1 option.
My first guess is that the .rcx file isn't in the right place. The java
classpath is not used for loading the .rcx file - it is only used to
find classes. I'd suggest putting the .rcx file in the current
directory before launching the simulator.
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
| Hello All, In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, Dave Baum wrote (almost two years ago, Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:34:56 GMT -- your words are cherished, Dave! :-): (...) [...] (...) Well, I am not (yet) a Java programmer, but try to become one, and would like to (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
