|
|
 | | Re: NQC wish
|
| Inline functions are by their very nature surpressed. Also, most control structures and calculations that can be evaluated at compile time are eliminated. I thought about surpressing tasks and subs, but then decided not to. The problem is that tasks (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) To me, one of the important features of such a thing would be compatibility with the existing firmware. Otherwise, why not just use LegOS? (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| If anyone is seriously considering this I'd ask two things... 1) Have you considered porting the p-code interpreter used by Interactive C or something like a stripped down Java bytecode interpreter instead? The idea here would be that the RCX (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Yeah, this was discussed way back at the beginning of the reverse-engineering effort. It's something I'd like to see too. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| I was jut wondering, has anybody tried to implement a "better RCX-code"? It must be possible to write something very similar to RCX-code in LegOS, only faster and implementing the "missing" array structures and more variables. Mayby compatible with (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
