 | | Re: communication brick <-> PC
|
|
(...) My current thoughts are to add "listen" support to rcxlib/RCX_Link, but not add anything else to the nqc tool itself. This would facilitate writing a small wrapper program around rcxlib/RCX_Link that could send/receive messages without (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: communication brick <-> PC
|
|
(...) It can be used, but the problem is that the tower shuts off fairly quickly if it doesn't hear anything from the computer. So the listening program would need to be sending keep-alive messages periodically. I think that Dave will put something (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | communication brick <-> PC
|
|
Hi there ! I've got a question concerning ir communication with the brick ... After having done some low-level debugging to make a self-written programm communicate with my brick using the IR tower, I'd like to make my programm control the brick. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) I don't have any changes in mind for the monitor/catch construct, although I'll listen to suggestions if people have any. There was a brief discussion about this a while back: (URL) that point I was already pushing a procedural approach - (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
Dave, I'm curious if the system of events and event-trapping in NQC 2.x will remain about the same as it is now. I played around with it this last week, and had little success (it worked once or twice, I *think*), but what struck me was how much I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
(...) I went with simple... #pragma reserve start [end] where [end] is assumed to be start if not specified. If you want to reserve multiple vars (or multiple ranges) you need to use multiple #pragmas. (...) Yes, its all a bit academic. The only (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
(...) How about: #pragma reserve 1 3 5-8 9 with range explicitly specified by "-". Then those that want to specify a range can do so and those who want to specify a list can do so. Of course this assumes that you don't allow arithmetic in the pragma (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.2 a2
|
|
(...) I'm really busy recently; it'll probably be a few more days before I have the Linux builds done. (Since it's an alpha release, it doesn't make my top priority list. I'll drop everything for the final release. *grin*) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | MacNQC 2.2 a2
|
|
Alpha release of MacNQC 2.2 is at (URL) the most part this release just incorporates the latest NQC compiler into the MacNQC GUI. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
(...) I would suggest leaving it simple. For example: #pragma 1 Would reserve var. one. #pragma 1 5 9 10 31 Would reserve var.'s 1, 5, 9, 10 & 31 It's the easiest to see at a glance and would be easy to adjust as you changed your code. Dean -- (...) (25 years ago, 29-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Syntax for reserving variables in NQC?
|
|
The fact that in RCX2 the counters are overlapped with global variables has brought about an interesting problem. How should a programmer indicate to the NQC compiler that a certain RCX variable location is to be left untouched (not assigned to any (...) (25 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Differences between RCX 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0?
|
|
(...) From what I've gathered: 1.0 to 1.5 Removed the power adapter board. Less components on the board. 1.0 to 2.0 from what I gathered a slightly newer board with a 32k ROM instead of the 16K in the 1.0. (The 1.0 is designed to hold a 32k ROM. As (...) (25 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Tell your robot what to do!
|
|
I don't know if you could use this with Mindstorms or not (I would assume you could) but it sure sounds cool! It's a voice recognition module.... I wonder how hard it would be to assemble and use. It's $50 too.... I don't want to be the guinea (...) (25 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Differences between RCX 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0?
|
|
I've been away from the Mindstorms scene for almost a year....got a bit behind! *grin* Matt (25 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC and rcx2
|
|
(...) No doc yet. It probably won't happen for a while. There are still features that need to be implemented! Dave (25 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
