Subject:
|
Re: global output control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:29:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@*AvoidSpam*mattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
1694 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> I just know if I use it, I'll have to add "Is 'obvert' a real word?" to
> the NQC FAQ!
That sounds like a reason to use it right there. :)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: global output control
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
