|
|
 | | Re: NQC's future
|
| "Brian Davis" <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote in message news:HrB87H.17p1@lugnet.com... (...) future one) for NQC (...) I think your question probably meant "can I use FastTimer in defining events because I want better resolution than is possible with (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: BricxCC release 3.3.7.6
|
| (...) I will make this change. Thanks for the report! John Hansen (20 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) According to the LEGO documentation, only the normal (source 1) Timers can be used as an event source. The ‘sensors’ for which events can be generated are: · Physical sensors (Source 9, Range 0-2, Logical number 0-2) · System timers (Source 1, (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: BricxCC release 3.3.7.6
|
| small suggestion: when you've a syntax error in NQC, it goes like this - error is reported - you correct the error - recompile the source - code is downloaded - error message disappears In my opinion, the last 2 actions should be the other way (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) Here's a suggestion/question: is it possible (either in the current incarnation or a future one) for NQC to use FastTimer() as a source for events? Timer() works, but not (it seems) FastTimer(). (20 years ago, 11-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: Spybot on shop@home
|
| (...) I agree! I went for the shop@home offer (in the Netherlands, they are 45 euros) and got me a SnapTrax. It is a blast to play with - even when just using the remote control to drive it around (chasing cats...). I just finished my first official (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) ;o) ... but why not ? (...) You're right, I should try pbForth, actually I intend to do that for a while but never jumped in. In the late 80's, I was involved in a point of sales terminal project that was programmed with a preemptive (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | RE: NQC's future
|
| (...) Ha Ha, very funny :-) Seriously, Philippe, why not give pbForth a try? I know that NQC works great on both the Spybots and the RCX, and even Cybermaster. But if you're looking for speed, higher precision, lots of variables and generally more (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) Something I'd like to see implemented in NQC is a mixed-mode multiply/divide, similar to the */ operator in Forth, with an intermediary 32bits product. That would greatly ease precision calculations without requiring major structural (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: Spybots & Java
|
| (...) Thanks for the helpful clarification, John -- and a Happy New Year! Cheers, Martin (21 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
|
|
