Hi Seb, 2009/3/25 Sebastien Lelong <[email protected]>: > Hi Joep, > > Doc generation does not consider conditional compiled procedures. It just > consider procedure/function/... at the beginning of lines (no indentation). > Maybe I could modify this so it also search procedure/function which are > indented. var/consts can't considered in this case, or the doc will display > *all* "internal" var/const. So I guess this is not the ideal case too, if > you want your "special constant under conditional compilation" to be > considered in doc. FYI, attached is your lcd_backlight.jal doc, generated > with current script. This is not exactly what it is supposed to generate, but it the conditional compile is way to specific (and complex; so not worth the effort) to have your script handle it. But maybe there is an other way to tell your scirpt to add a procedure to the documentation that is not realy specified?
> One more thought: I understand you want users to be able to specify on which > PWM channel the LCD backlight will be controlled. Maybe some of this logic: > > > if channel == 1 then > include pwm_ccp1 > -- use pwm1_*() procedures > end if > > > could be imported back to pwm libs: instead of accessing pwm procedures with > prefixed pwm1_*(), pwm2_*(), etc..., use a wrapper procedure taking the > channel number as argument, then dispatching to appropriate one. Then you > would ahev only one procedure definition: > > > procedure lcd_backlight_variable(byte in value) is > ... > pwm_set_dutycycle(lcd_backlight_pwm,value) > end procedure > > > I wonder how optimized the code could be, if ti's worth it, but I can give a > try. What would be the benefit? I think you will get code for all available pwms if you use (at least) one, since the there is a run time parameter that might get any value.So an other few bytes of ram and flash used... (I think we need to take the limited envirionment into account. flash and especially ram are scarse and jallib is takes more of those for the same task as bert's pack.) The code looks pretty extensive but condition compile will only keep the part that is actually used, so current sollution is pretty efficient (I assume, not verified). Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
