Hi, >> 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... > > Mmh... not sure to understand. Assuming we put this logic on PWM lib, do you > mean if you don't even use this "channel selection" feature, some of the > code will still be used (ie. written in ram/flash, thus growing) ? I mean that if you use the channel selection feature for one channel, code for all available channels will be put into flash. Of course there is no point in using the channel selection in for 1 channel, but the user might if it comes accros this function first. And it also applies when you use two channels on a 4-channel chip (I assume there are 4-channel chips since you provided libs).
>> (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.) > > Interesting... Do you have any figure ? Can you give a concrete example so > we may dig this and try to understand why ? I don't have one at hand, but keep it in mind. > I know I tend not to give priority to this, I prefer having more flexibility > and maintainable code. I guess there's a compromise to make here. I agree on that and the compromise means we must also take resource use into account. > Yet one more thought: I see in your conditional compile contruct that you > specifically include "pwm_ccp1", etc... If you just include pwm_hardware, > the lib will include appropriate underlying pwm_ccpX lib. It will also > include pwm_common to deal with resolution/frequency. You shouldn't have to > deal with includes (except if you have good reasons I did not see :)) The good reason is ignorance ;) > Yet again one more thought (still): by the same way we can rename const and > vars with "is" keyword, don't you think having the possibility to rename > procedures and functions would be great ? I was obviously not paying attention if this is what you suggest. I think it would be great if we could do aliassing of procedures and functions. Either with 'is', with macro's or any other means :) 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
