Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2 Request
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:35:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3279 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NQC 2 Request
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
