Subject:
|
RE: Lazy newbieish question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:37:47 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<rhempel@bmts.STOPSPAMcom>
|
Viewed:
|
2497 times
|
| |
|
|
> We're wrapping a lot sensor input stuff at a higher level of abstraction
> than the raw pbForth words. This makes sense; a Forther would probably do
> the same. For example, we're providing
>
> (get-light-value 'PORT2)
>
> expands to
>
> 3 1 SENSOR_TYPE
> 128 1 SENSOR_MODE
> 1 SENSOR_CLEAR
> 1 SENSOR_READ DUMP
> 1 SENSOR_VALUE
>
> effectively. Perhaps this is a bit much every time the programmer checks the
> light sensor, but that's what our initial compilation process converts the
> abstraction into.
Matt,
I see this all the time when I teach embedded C programming to desktop
guys - it's an objectification of things at the wrong level.
Maybe you could consider this:
(setup-light-sensor 'PORT2)
which expands to
3 1 SENSOR_TYPE
128 1 SENSOR_MODE
1 SENSOR_CLEAR
and then
(get-light-value 'PORT2)
which expands to
1 SENSOR_READ DROP
1 SENSOR_VALUE
Becasue you are dealing with real hardware, it takes a while between setting
up a light sensor and actually reading it. You are probably clearing the
sensor every time and never getting a valid result, becuase it's 3 msec
between samples!
I'll ignore the rest of the post until I convince you that this is
the better way to do things :-)
Cheers, Ralph
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Lazy newbieish question
|
| If I wasn't in a hurry with so many things to do in the next two days, I would figure this out for myself. My apologies for such a simple question. We're wrapping a lot sensor input stuff at a higher level of abstraction than the raw pbForth words. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
