|
|
 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Yes, that seems to be the best way to go about it. (...) Don't we all do? :-) (...) Hmm, yes, thata I did not think about... well, we'll continue using macros! ;-) Thanks for the response. And for NQC. /Vlad (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| Dave, All of these additions to NQC sound great ... especially the char and bool data types! There is no way that we (all the NQC users) can adequately express our appreciation for all of your work in developing and freely distributing NQC. I hope (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: What should be in the next version of RcxCC
|
| Hi! well, I am missing something in an otherwise great RcxCC... Variable values display in dec/hex/binary would be great, as converting by hand every time is tedious. thanks /Vlad (25 years ago, 22-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC wishlist
|
| I am not sure if there is such a wishlist... I remember there was a "call for wishes" for RxCC... The biggest problem with the standard firmware is the small amount of variables. Since not every use of a variable will use all 16 bits, I think it (...) (25 years ago, 22-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
