| |
In article <38F0180E.37BDFB13@SPAM.netstrata.com>, Dennis Williamson
<dennis.NO@SPAM.netstrata.com> wrote:
> I definitely intended to mean portable source. And that the "__FIRMWARE"
> would
> be used in compiler directives rather than in the code.
>
> It is a simple matter for me to define my own __FIRMWARE (or anything
> else,
> right?) and do #ifdef's to my heart's content. It's probably better to
> let the
> "end-coder" decide on this type of thing anyway.
Yep, you can #ifdef however you want, and NQC supports -D and -U options
on the command line that allow you to define (or undefine) symbols
before the compile takes place. This is handy if you're using
Makefiles, but even in an ordinary shell environment you can still take
advantage of this by setting the NQC_OPTIONS environment var.
> > 2) Source backwards compatability.
>
> I may be mistaken, but I'd call that "forward" compatibility. Source
> "goes
> forward". APIs, etc. "looks backward". Right?
Yep, my mistake. As usual, I was thinking from the perspective of the
compiler, which would need to be 'backward' compatible with old source.
However, the source itself would be 'forward' compatible with the new
compiler.
I also tend to use 'backwards compatability' as a catch-all to represent
the problems associated with installed base of users, tools, source,
whatever.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
| I definitely intended to mean portable source. And that the "__FIRMWARE" would be used in compiler directives rather than in the code. It is a simple matter for me to define my own __FIRMWARE (or anything else, right?) and do #ifdef's to my heart's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
