Subject:
|
Re: NQC listing mnemonics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 13:46:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2116 times
|
| |
|
|
I second this. I look at the listing a lot; esp. when optimizing. But
actually would feel quite happy with the newer format. Of course it
would be nice to just have a flag; and quite cheap./
creature feep.
Dw
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Mike Kory wrote:
> Dave,
> I'm one of those who do look at the listings. I am somewhat torn between the
> old and the new mnemonics. I like yours better, but I think it would
> probably be better to go with our new "standard" from Lego. Of course Lego
> has only given us the Scout commands. You still get to keep yours for the
> RCX only commands. :-)
>
> --Mike Kory
>
>
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
> news:dbaum-0412990120040001@207-229-150-87.d.enteract.com...
> > I have started looking at adding Scout support to NQC, and in the process
> > I am questioning whether or not to change the mnemonics used in the
> > disassembly listings (the -l option for nqc). Currently, I use a set
> > mnemonics that I made up when writing NQC. Now, however, we have a list
> > of "official" mnemonics from Lego (as part of the Scout SDK). Should I
> > keep the old mnemonics or use the new ones?
> >
> > For example, here are some of the old ones:
> >
> > 000 Set var[0], 0 14 00 02 00 00
> > 005 OutPwr ABC, 7 13 07 02 07
> > 009 OutDir ABC, Fwd e1 87
> >
> > According to the lego mnemonics, this would be
> >
> > 000 setv var[0], 0 14 00 02 00 00
> > 005 pwr ABC, 7 13 07 02 07
> > 009 dir ABC, Fwd e1 87
> >
> > Anyone have any strong feelings here? I suspect only a few people look at
> > the listings anyway, but they are probably used to the old names.
> > However, using the new names would provide more commonality with the Scout
> > SDK. I really don't want to support both (too much feature creep already
> > in NQC).
> >
> > Dave Baum
> >
> > --
> > reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC listing mnemonics
|
| In article (...) IMHO, there are some cases where extra features are actually cost justified, but in many cases they are added because the short term cost is deceptively low. Even something as simple as an extra command line switch carries with it a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC listing mnemonics
|
| Dave, I'm one of those who do look at the listings. I am somewhat torn between the old and the new mnemonics. I like yours better, but I think it would probably be better to go with our new "standard" from Lego. Of course Lego has only given us the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
