Subject:
|
Re: global output control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:45:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1616 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <3.0.32.20000620085052.00e025d0@mailserver>, "John Barnes"
<barnes@sensors.com> wrote:
> Just had to add my two cents worth;
>
> NegateOutput
> RestoreOutput
>
> JB
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 that RevertOutput was a bit hokey...sort of a combination of
inverting and restoring. I'm not sure how I feel about Obvert.
NonInvertOutput would work for all those EE's out there, but probably be
annoying to everyone else.
Dave Baum
p.s. I absolutely hate picking API names. Too often a good API name
has to anticipate how it will be used. I was really hasty with the
original APIs in NQC 0.4, and those ugly APIs are still hanging around
in the "1.0 compatability mode".
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
