Subject:
|
Re: global output control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:51:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{mattdm@}saynotospam{mattdm.org}
|
Viewed:
|
1658 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> 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.
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.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: global output control
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: global output control
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
