2009/8/5 Sebastien Lelong <[email protected]>: >> > This will create a lot of "type mismatch" warnings is user code, but should > ok I guess. No, it won't (had to check though) There is a warning when a larger type is assigned to a smaller one. Not the other way around. And... There seem to be no warning at all when you use a larger calling parameter. So delay_1ms() takes a byte as paramter, but will silently accept delay_1ms( 100 * 256) and return quicker then you might expect at first glance...
> Any reason this is procedure would be with value contained in a byte and not > in a word ? I don't understand what you want to know... > Finally, since you seem to be highly motivated and passioned by delays > (...), do you think is could be possible to add more delay procedures, like > the ones in Bert's extradelay.jal ? Here some that could be useful IMO: > > delay_100us (included in your suggestion) > delay_500us > delay_500ms > delay_1s > delay_5s No problem to do so, but what is the point in having each 1/2/5 base? It can't be about compatibilty and it would give about 1 bit steps... With word parameters, 1ms gives delay up to a minute. 1s gives delays up to 18 hours. 100us is different in the way that I hope to provide substantial better accurcay then equivalent 10us calls. Personally, I concider it bad programming practice to use all kinds of different-based delays within a single program. A few well-chosen delay functions should do the job. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
