|
|
 | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) I'd say go for it, it is still quite uncommon for C programmers to put their variable declarations elsewhere. Jürgen (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC ideas
|
| (...) Hi John, C is more restrictive than C++ when it comes to variable declaration. In C, you can only declare variables at the beginning of a block before any executable. Well, lets see..... any variables declared outside a function are by (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC ideas
|
| NQC is definitely sticking with its C heritage with respect to semi-colons. Elisabeth mentioned fancier math and IP features. Neither of those seem possible when you consider that the compiler has to generate code that runs on the LEGO firmware (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RE: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) I could not agree more with Kevin. Adding a feature, such as adding in more intricate math functions, or add in tcp/ip socket support, etc. is more fruitful than making the language syntax more like others just because someone is not used to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Ideas for NQC
|
| (...) I object to this proposed change. Lack of knowledge of a language's syntax does not justify changing the syntax. (...) [SNIP] Kevin (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
