Subject:
|
Re: Modulo operator in NQC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:25:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3129 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <38E2BBB4.FE4D7FA3@SPAM.netstrata.com>, Dennis Williamson
<dennis.NO@SPAM.netstrata.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to use the modulo operator in NQC, but I get an error that it
> expects constants. I checked the docs and that indeed seems to be the
> case. While I'm sure there must be instances where one would use
> constants on both sides of the operator, I can't think of any. To not
> allow variables seems to be eliminating the main usefulness of this
> operator.
The limitation is more historical than anything else. Originally
expressions were all evaluated at compile time, which is why I have a
bunch of operators (%, >>, <<) that have no corresponding bytecodes in
the firmware.
Over the last few versions of NQC, code generation has gotten a bit more
sophisticated (including allocation of temporary variable, etc) so
operations which had corresponding bytecodes (+, -, etc) could be
generated.
Its actually possible to generate a sequence of instructions for modulo
(div, mul, sub). Not efficient, and burns a temp, but still possible.
I've got the basic code working, so it should appear in the next version.
> Perhaps pointers are the answer. Does NQC support pointers?
> Obviously I'm just learning about NQC.
Sorry, no pointers. The firmware is *very* limiting. No locals, no
stack, no pointers, etc.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Modulo operator in NQC
|
| I'm trying to use the modulo operator in NQC, but I get an error that it expects constants. I checked the docs and that indeed seems to be the case. While I'm sure there must be instances where one would use constants on both sides of the operator, (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
