Subject:
|
Re: NQC default output file
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:38:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5015 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <slrn87sdmv.eho.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
> I was checking to see if NQC already does have an option to spit bytecodes
> to stdout (-L would work, if rcxcomm would understand the format) and I came
> across something that seems nonintuitive to me. The default output file is
> "named the same as the input file, but with an extension of '.rcx' instead
> of '.nqc'", according to the user manual. Wouldn't it make more sense to use
> the basename of the file and output to the current directory?
>
> In order to test nqc, I was doing
>
> jadzia:~$ nqc /usr/doc/nqc-2.1.b2/test.nqc
>
> and nothing happened! (Oh yeah, this brings up another problem -- if it
> can't write the file, it ought to complain!) When I copied the file to /tmp,
> and did
I just added the error check to nqc.
I haven't changed the directory yet, though. Using the source directory
was strictly from laziness. Assuming there aren't massive objections,
I'll switch to using the current directory.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | NQC default output file
|
| I was checking to see if NQC already does have an option to spit bytecodes to stdout (-L would work, if rcxcomm would understand the format) and I came across something that seems nonintuitive to me. The default output file is "named the same as the (...) (27 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
