>
> >>>
> >> 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...
> Rethinking about this: asigning warns for signed/unsigned and larger
> to smaller vars. I'd expect the same checking with function
> parameters, but it does not. Is this a bug?


I'd say yes, and can't probably do anything... :)


>
>  >> 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.
> >
> I'd expect some more arguments why we should add all those delays...
>
>
I don't have stronger one... This is about personal tastes and readability,
which is also personal tastes. I can remember some people would have wanted
these delay proc too...

Not a big deal anyway.


Seb

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to