Subject:
|
Re: global output control
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:57:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[mattdm@mattdm.]stopspammers[org]
|
Viewed:
|
1770 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> I agree Invert isn't much better since a second call doesn't undo the
> effects of the first call.
I thought about this for a while, when I was thinking about "obvert". In one
sense, "invert" does imply that inversing again will revert (*grin*), but I
don't believe that this meaning is implicit. There is another sense which
simply means "to make face backwards (or upside down or inside out)", which
is the sense you'd be using.
> Whenever I run into this big of a naming problem I tend to question
> whether the thing being named is at fault. Those global bytecodes are
> very poorly thought out...not only do they work in a non-obvious way,
> but they also aren't very useful.
Yup. The one use I can possibly see is flipping the outputs to compensate
for a hardware design flaw. But that's pretty silly.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: global output control
|
| (...) The problem I have with ForwardOutput() and ReverseOutput() is that the terms 'forward' and 'reverse' already have a meaning - specifically they refer to motor directions... Fwd(OUT_A); Rev(OUT_B); If you then 'reverse' the global direction... (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
