Subject:
|
Re: NQC wishlist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 07:38:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1902 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, Dave Baum writes:
> But there could still be a couple "smaller" types. Right now an int is 16
> bits. Perhaps a char could be 8 bits, and a bool (borrowed from C++) is 1
> bit.
Yes, that seems to be the best way to go about it.
> I tend to have lots of boolean flags in my code.
Don't we all do? :-)
> There is no bytecode level support for indirect addressing, therefore I
> could support something like this:
Hmm, yes, thata I did not think about... well, we'll continue using macros! ;-)
Thanks for the response. And for NQC.
/Vlad
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) I'm not really comfortable with variable-length bit allocations since this isn't something that happens in C outside of structs. But there could still be a couple "smaller" types. Right now an int is 16 bits. Perhaps a char could be 8 bits, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
