|
|
 | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) So what your saying is I should split my program into more functions not less, so that the local ints are destroyed and available for re-use. That's a great idea, it's the complete opposite of my question but fulfills my goal perfectly :-). (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) Most functions in NQC are in-line functions, so in a sense they probably *are* in main(). One thing I do is place all my initalization code (as much as possible) into inline functions. That way, when the compilier runs through, it can allocate (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Memory question
|
| Say I had a program that has a very large block of start-up/calibration code that is run once at the top of the program. Does it make any difference if I keep it in the "Main()" task, or put it in a function? I mean from the point of stack space (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Help me convert this train program to use events (NQC)
|
| (...) (URL) (...) I bought some alligator clips to use with some 24-guage wire. I'll become impure just this once, but I won't resort to willful LEGO destruction. :) (19 years ago, 1-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Help me convert this train program to use events (NQC)
|
| (...) If it were me, I'd destroy one small LEGO 9v wire. Cut the wire in half, and splice in a long segment of speaker wire. That would look better than a short layout, or the battery-powered train. Steve (19 years ago, 30-Nov-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
