 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(I didn't have time today to check with VC++ and VB as I intended.) (...) Mhm, I see. This makes sense. The behavior of VC++ still strikes me as odd, but anyway if it's so, then your conclusion is obviously right, I'd say. Uwe (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) My test was a program like this: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char**argv) { int i; for(i=0; i<argc; ++i) printf("<%s>\n", argv[i]); } I built it under both Metrowerks and VC++. Then I called the program with various command lines to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Absolutely! I guess I misunderstood. Cheers, Ben. -- SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I don't deny that this is the way C does it. But nevertheless, when you pass parameters *on the Win command line*, shouldn't you follow the behavior that is de-facto standard (even if "incorrect" from a C view) for *that* OS, irresepective of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite, err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So, to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, I don't know "official" rules nor did I find a place where to look them up. Nevertheless, I can only think that this whole escaping stuff is not compliant with normal, expected Win32 behavior. The backslash is the standard (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
According to that elementary physics, you are converting power into heat as part of this process. Usually, when downgearing an engine, the intention is to have more power at the slower speed (for better climbing, lifting, etc.). This will not be the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) the exec (...) The answer isn't pretty.... As near as I can tell (sorry, not much of a Windows expert), the command line gets passed in its entirety to the executable, which then is responsible for parsing it into separate arguments. For the (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) 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 (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) The same problem was already present with the b1 (I had asked about it in this newsgroup but got no reply). Also, I don't think it is related to the parameters. I have now checked the exec call of RcxCC with a debugger and found this is the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
