| |
Hi Ralph,
> This is a good idea Sergey. Obvoiusly you have got a set of tools up to build
> the pbForth from the distribution. Does the makefile work OK for you?
Yes, it works. After fighting for a while with Cygwin32 + binutils (it's still
present a bug in linker configuration), finally I got the development
environment.
Your makefile works fine so it was very easy to get pbFORTH compiled.
> I might suggest that I add a word that turns the echoes off or on?
Well, I think it's a deeper question. I would like to consider it rather as a
part of porting: or we are going with echo or we are going without. Making it
as an option will bring just unnecessary complexity in both implementation and
usage (for instance, before run my terminal program I should always call
ECHO_OFF).
Just to list some cons and pros
Advantages:
- Possible to use standard terminals and create a faster custom terminals.
For instance, my terminal implementation works fine even without pause between
characters (only small pause after LF ~ 25ms was necessary).
- Less errors in line (I think most errors are happened when transmitter and
receiver are works together).
Disadvantages:
- Non-standard solution (in fact, standard regulates only behaviour of ACCEPT
but not concrete implementation, like in case with handling of backspaces, for
instance).
> I have a new version I'd like to post shortly, any other ideas for
improvements?
So far, I have found only one thing - TX? word supposes to return flag but
returns nothing. pbFORTH doesn't use EKEY? word, but somebody else can do...
And this question about stack overwriting disturbs me. Do you have some
solution around?
> I was thinking about adding words to control the upload baud rate, and maybe
> a little bit of info for the screen to let everyone know pbFORTH is alive!
Oops, this is exactly what I'm doing now. ;-)
My idea was to create some kind of monitor that could control On/Off
indication (LCD+sound) and battery indicator. I'm not sure yet about motor and
sensors - it could require changes in RCX words… And also a question, is it
really necessary?
But On/Off indicator will be definitely helpful.
So if you are interested, we can combine our efforts.
About higher upload baud rate I'm not sure. My tests show me that most errors
happened when response comes from RCX. It could be that IR transceiver and
receiver are not designed to work simultaneously?
Also, very nice to have such an alternative around as pbFORTH. :)
Regards
Sergey
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: Double echo
|
| Sergey wrote: <Discussion of ECHO_ON ECHO_OFF snipped> (...) Personally, this is a BIG advantage. Users who do not have access to Tcl now have to deal with double respose characters. A simple ECHO_OFF at the beginning of their script and they now (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Double echo
|
| (...) This is a good idea Sergey. Obvoiusly you have got a set of tools up to build the pbForth from the distribution. Does the makefile work OK for you? I might suggest that I add a word that turns the echos off or on? How does ECHO_OFF ( -- ) (...) (25 years ago, 26-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
