 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
