Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2 Request
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:45:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3890 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 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
|
|
|
|
