 | | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) It's a bit obscure, but a perfectly good word -- the opposite of invert. It means to turn something forward, as opposed to invert, which is to turn something backward. (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) I never heard that word before. Jürgen (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) What's wrong with Obvert? (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) How about DontInvertOutput? Not beautiful, but IMHO clearer. Jürgen (24 years ago, 20-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8kshgc.sof.....bu.edu... (...) first, (...) It won't do any good to call Revert without Invert though... I guess one confusion with Revert is that it wouldn't switch the output back to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) The only problem is that "revert" implies that invert must be called first, and I don't think that is the case. (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8kpub3.v5a.....bu.edu... (...) "RevertOutput". (...) I think RevertOutput is fine. I actually wonder how often that call will end being used in user's programs? The InvertOutput command (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: global output control
|
|
(...) ObvertOutput? (24 years ago, 18-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | global output control
|
|
The Scout and RCX 2.0 both support what lego calls "global" control of the outputs. At first I thought the global calls somehow took precedence over normal calls, so I simply made global versions of all the output calls in NQC. However, after (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) <snip> Dave, Been out of town, and will look more at your messages this weekend. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gordon (24 years ago, 15-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) Getting things like Timer[0] = 100; to work while still allowing if (Timer(0) < 100) { } is a lot harder than I had anticipated, so I'm punting on array-style setting of the various RCX source (such as Timer(), UpperLimit(), etc). There are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) Not really a stack problem, just a control flow issue. On suggestion for the event handling was something like this: begin_events(EVENT_MASK, event_handler); // put code that executes during event monitoring here end_events event_handler: // (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.x event processing
|
|
(...) #3, which was the approach you took. (...) I think what I liked about the approach in pBrick script was that it was fairly like coding a microcontroller in assembler: set up an interrupt vector and then include a label and code for the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: communication brick <-> PC
|
|
(...) Cool. We'll wait patiently. :) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
