 | | | | | |
Hi,
I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and
OnRevFor(motors).
Regards
Dave
--
David Warnock
Sundayta Ltd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later
release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea?
Dave Baum
In article <37DE2468.66B220C4@sundayta.co.uk>, David Warnock
<david@sundayta.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and
> OnRevFor(motors).
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dave,
I like the finite coltrol of the motors myself but can understand the
request. It may encourage the "younger" programmers to use the
language.
Does adding the commands go against your move to get closer to the
API?
The user could always create a macro for the command.
---
DonC
donc@cccd.edu
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <ILrfN=1HsT26NaMerhMgfJ=YFnU8@4ax.com>, donc@cccd.edu wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I like the finite coltrol of the motors myself but can understand the
> request. It may encourage the "younger" programmers to use the
> language.
>
> Does adding the commands go against your move to get closer to the
> API?
No, that's not a big deal, I don't mind a "superset". Most of the NQC 2.0
changes were to make terminology consistent between RCX Code and NQC, etc.
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Why not just use a macro instead of expanding the language?
At 06:13 AM 9/15/99 +0000, you wrote:
> Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later
> release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea?
>
> Dave Baum
>
>
> In article <37DE2468.66B220C4@sundayta.co.uk>, David Warnock
> <david@sundayta.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and
> > OnRevFor(motors).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
Joel Shafer joel@connect.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
That's all that really happens when I add new calls anyway. Anything that
even remotely looks like a function call is either an inline function of a
macro, and not part of the language itself.
I guess the real question is if its appropriate to extend the "official"
API in this way or not. At the moment, the feature set for 2.0 is closed
since I'm just tyring to wrap up documentation and get the release final.
Dave
In article <4.2.0.58.19990915094448.00bdc930@mail.connect.net>, Joel
Shafer <joel@connect.net> wrote:
> Why not just use a macro instead of expanding the language?
>
> At 06:13 AM 9/15/99 +0000, you wrote:
> > Its a little too late to add to the NQC 2 API, but I can add it in a later
> > release if people really want it. Anyone second the idea?
> >
> > Dave Baum
> >
> >
> > In article <37DE2468.66B220C4@sundayta.co.uk>, David Warnock
> > <david@sundayta.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and
> > > OnRevFor(motors).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> > --
> > reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
>
>
> Joel Shafer joel@connect.net
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <37DE2468.66B220C4@sundayta.co.uk>, David Warnock
<david@sundayta.co.uk> wrote:
> I just wondered whether it might be handy to add OnFwdFor(motors) and
> OnRevFor(motors).
If anyone wants to add these functions into their own code...
void OnFwdFor(const int m, const int &t) { Fwd(m); OnFor(m, t); }
void OnRevFor(const int m, const int &t) { Rev(m); OnFor(m, t); }
These should be efficient - everything will be inlined and no temporaries
will be created - unless a temporary is needed during the computation of
t...
int x, y;
OnFwdFor(x); // ok, no temporary
OnFwdFor(x+y); // need temp to compute x+y
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dave,
Thanks for all the comments in the thread. As I have not looked at the
API supplied by the firmware I did not realise that the NQC api was such
a close match.
Adding the functions as you have suggested is a very neat solution.
It is nice to have alternatives in coding so that we can either just use
the primitives (Fwd, On, OnFor) where we learn less functions but write
more code (sometimes) or where we can use more complex functions such as
OnFwd and OnFwdFor.
The API for NQC 2.0 does seem very clean and I will be using it for all
future projects.
I found NQC 1.x good with my older son (age 7) within the RCX Command
Centre, although my younger son (5) is much better with the Lego
interface (and lots of help).
Many thanks
Dave
--
David Warnock
Sundayta Ltd
| | | | | | |
