 | | Q: Determining state of outputs
|
|
Hello everybody! For the building of my next robot an answer to the following question could be very helpful: Is there any possibility in NQC to get the state of an output (on, off, direction). While running a program I would like to control one (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Safest thing is a multi-step process: 1. Announce that a new group/list lugnet.robotics.nqc will soon be replacing lugnet.robotics.nqc (i.e., a "heads-up"). 2. [A day or so later] Create lugnet.robotics.nqc and associated web areas and mailing (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: location of NQC group?
|
|
(...) Personally I like the move to robotics.nqc I don't like the idea of splitting it up. Cross posting would make reading the groups very annoying. I'd say make the current one archive only putting a LARGE message like the rules pop up to new (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
