 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Not that I'm complaining or anything :) but is the 'listen' feature I talked about a while ago in the plan for the future? I'll work on making Linux builds today if I have a chance. (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I remember discussing this briefly, but I don't think we ever came up with a final "spec" for the feature. Here are the issues I forsee: 1) The IR tower times out. NQC should probably do something to keep it alive - and that "something" should (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Yes, this is why I'd like someone else to implement this. I just want to use it. *grin* (...) RCX messages is what I'm interested in. It might be reasonable to have several modes. (...) Good question. I don't think this feature is out of line (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I think NQC should be strictly a compiler. It seems like it would be more manageable for both developers and users if the RCX communication pieces were in a separate executable. This change should make NQC completely portable (if there is such (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) If this is done, the compiler should have an option to spit out compiled bytecode on stdout, and the rcxcomm program should have a matching option to accept bytecodes on stdin and send them to the rcx. And then there should be a wrapper that (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
