 | | Re: global output control —John Barnes
|
| | | Just had to add my two cents worth; NegateOutput RestoreOutput JB (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: global output control —Dave Baum
|
| | | | (...) I was thinking of RestoreOutput myself, but then I was wondering if it implied restoring the enable/disable state as well. I'd like to keep the calls 'paired' as much as possible... EnableOutput / DisableOutput InvertOutput / ???Output I know (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: global output control —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) It's a perfectly good word! (It's not in M-W, but OED has it. And M-W has "obverse"....) :) And, it describes exactly what you want. (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: global output control —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) PS -- I'm not really as fanatical about this as I may seem. I'll be happy either way. (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: global output control —Dave Baum
|
| | | | (...) Yes it is a great description of the actual function, however I feel the word is a bit obscure and that's why I hesitate about using it. That's what the "not sure" is...Obvert technically means the right thing, but perhaps isn't obvious to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: global output control —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) That sounds like a reason to use it right there. :) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: global output control —Dave Baum
|
| | | | (...) We must have the same twisted sense of humor since the necessity of putting it in the FAQ pretty much tipped the scales for me. ObvertOutput() it is! Dave p.s. We'll see if I'm still laughing when people start e-mailing me about it. (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
