 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Implementation of ## gets pretty nasty - at least within the current pre-processor design. I'll look at the C spec again, but I'm pretty sure ## forces a re-tokenization. In the current design of NQC, tokenization happens before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I believe the simplest way to do it would be to have an extra preprocessing pass... it will slow down compilation a little, it's true, but maybe not that much as to matter (compilation is anyway so much faster than the downloading anyway) then (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) If I were to implement it, I probably wouldn't add a second pass. The real obstacle at present is that the literal text for a token cannot always be recovered after it leaves the lexer. For example, '01' and '1' both leave the lexer as an (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I took a good look at the preprocessor code, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement ## aside from the problem of recovering original token text. Adding support for remembering the original token text is easy to do if you're willing to be a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
Dave, So far, I've lived without ##, and I'm quite sure I can live without 4) and 5). And can't 3) be replaced in many cases by arithmetic? In my brief stint programming "lego assembler" for the Scout, (Assembler! I'm embarrassed to admit how far (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) That would still be handy. Just the other night I was readying some NQC for distribution and I had: #define FOO_SENSOR SENSOR_2 and what I wanted to do was (beyond the user configurable part): #define DISPLAY_FOO DISPLAY_ ## FOO_SENSOR so I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I think 1 and 2 are the ones that would be really needed. 2 would be useful in writing macros to emulate arrays or "small" variables. But maybe there will be support for that in the compiler... cheers /Vlad (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) The inconguity was intentional. I was going to call it SetDisplay(), but then it seemed like: SetDisplay(1) should set the display to show the value 1. I felt that "select" did a better job conveying the fact that there are 7 different display (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
