 | | NQC 2.2 a2
|
|
Second alpha release of NQC 2.2 is at (2 URLs) for the list of changes. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 29-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
Although I would much prefer to see NQC reserveing the variables for itself, I prefer the syntax with a start and end on it. #pragma reserve 1 3 James P (25 years ago, 29-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
Dave Baum schreef: (...) This looks a bit confusing, the alternative looks more logical to me. (...) Now this I can understand :-) Looks awesome. (25 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
(...) Handling a range should't be too tough - perhaps like this #pragma start [count] where count is assumed to be 1 if not present // reserve location 1 #pragma 1 // reserve locations 5,6 and 7 #pragma 5 3 --- The alternative would be #pragma (...) (25 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
Dave Baum schreef: (...) It looks perfectly logical to me. Will it be possible to reserve a range or do we need to reserve each location separately? No need for an extra keyword indeed. (It's hard enough already. Well I guess part of that comes from (...) (25 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
