 | | 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)
|
| |
| | NQC beta test release policy
|
|
As this is my first post to this newsgroup, I thought I'd start by saying how wonderful I think nqc is etc. I got the RIS 1.5 for xmas and had nqc up and running in no time on my linux system. As well as being an excellent language and bytecode (...) (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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
