Hi guys,
OK, I think I'm stuck... I tried to build something using a potential
workaround: use port + number of pin in this port. Inside the lib, I would
define the pin like this (as in device file):
function gp2d02_read_pins(byte out port_vin, byte in number_vin, byte out
port_vout, byte out number_vout) return byte
var volatile bit pin_vin at port_vin : number_vin
var volatile bit pin_vout at port_vout : number_vout
...
end function
then:
-- pin_a4 : vin
-- pin_a6 : vout
var byte m = gp2d02_read_pins(PORTA,4,PORTA,6)
It appears it can't work: "var volatile ... at : X" requires X to be a
constant. By the time I pass it to the function, it becomes a variable
(whether "in" or "out"). (or do I miss something ?) The function can't take
these parameters, it must directly have access to these definitions. I tried
to put them in an array, then tell the function to access them with an
index, but same problem: one array have to be a "const" array, so index have
to be a constant. Thus not passed through a function parameter...
Due to a compiler bug, I can't pass/use pin name, so I think I'm stuck until
fix (see post in jallist + last bugs on casadeyork, I think this is about
this).
The only remaining options I can see are:
1. don't provide a lib for GP2D02, and wait for compiler's fix
2. provide a library for only one GP2D02 instance
3. build a library with a fixed number of GP2D02 instances
Whatever option 2. or 3., the API will be temporary (thus option 1.: we may
not want providing temporary API). For option 3., these would give something
like this:
var volatile byte gp2d02_vin_0 is pin_a4
var volatile byte gp2d02_vout_0 is pin_a6
var volatile byte gp2d02_vin_1 is pin_a2
var volatile byte gp2d02_vout_1 is pin_a3
...
-- all must be defined, even if only one used (?). Not "acceptable" IMHO
function gp2d02_read(byte in idx) return byte is
-- can't put this in an array, idx must a constant
-- this gives some nice "if"
if idx == 0 then
pin_vin is gp2d02_vin_0
pin_vout is gp2d02_vout_0
elif idx == 1 then
end if
end function
Since option 3. would really give a horrible API, hardly usable IMHO, I
really consider option 2. -- just deal with one instance, *for now* -- as
the most viable one.
Do you agree ? Do you see any other options ?
Cheers,
Seb
2009/3/18 Joep Suijs <[email protected]>
>
> Looks like a compiler bug, since it compiles okay if you use bytes in
> stead of bits.
>
> procedure gp2d02_read_pins(volatile byte in out pin1, volatile byte in
> out pin2) is
> -- the logic is like this
> pin1 = low
> pin1 = high
> if pin2 == high then
> -- do something
> end if
> end procedure
>
> var volatile byte gp2d02_vin
> var volatile byte gp2d02_vout
>
> var volatile byte q
>
> q = gp2d02_read_pins(gp2d02_vin, gp2d02_vout)
>
> >
>
--
Sébastien Lelong
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
