Subject:
|
Re: Alternatives for NQC Event Support
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 May 2000 15:56:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1863 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> To sum up, there are three options on the table...
>
> 1) API calls (e.g. BeginEvent() EndEvent()). Most flexible, but
> encourage goto and obscure structure.
>
> 2) try/catch. Nice structure, but out-of-order execution.
>
> 3) monitor/catch. Nice structure, but adds new keywords.
>
> My personal preference is 3. What do other people think? Any other
> ideas?
I like the second option, find it more elegant and similar to analogous
constructs in other languages. But I do see its possible side effects and
misuses, so my final choice is option 3.
Mario
Web page: http://www.geocities.com/~marioferrari
LUGNET member page: http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=22
Proud member of ItLUG: http://www.itlug.org
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Alternatives for NQC Event Support
|
| RCX 2.0 adds firmware support for events and resource acquisitiion. The primitives are rather straight-forward. For events, one command beings event monitoring on a set of events, another stops monitoring. If a monitored event occurs, control is (...) (25 years ago, 1-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
