 | | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see people selling their bot code. It's all about sharing and learning. Dean -- Coin-Op's For Sale!: (URL) Lego Workshop: (URL) Lego Club: (URL) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) This seems reasonable to me. Plus, it has the added benefit of being inherently open: source is all about "here's how to do this"; binaries are "here's a thing that does this". It's nice to encourage the first attitude. (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) This first define (__RCX = 2) will happen automatically in NQC when you select RCX 2.0 as the target for compilation. Selecting an RCX 1.0 target will cause the symbol to be defined as 1. (...) I hope I don't have to add a __FIRMWARE symbol... (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
Have you considered adding the firmware build version to that symbol or to a new one? __RCX = 2 __FIRMWARE=3.21 This would facilitate creation of portable, work-around code that would accomodate an end-user who hasn't updated their firmware (or has (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Just a long term tickler. Long term, it should come to pass that this is not true, and that moving a group is not an impossible thing to do. ++Lar (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
