I use _usec_delay for everything because I do not like the delay library. 1. I wish the delay library had a procedure that would work like _usec_delay, one procedure that does it all, from microseconds to seconds. 2. I do not need to include.
The correct solution to me would be to create one procedure to do it all (allthough this may be impossible?), and then do the include in the device files. This method may use more memory usage, but almost everything uses a delay somewhere. Maybe Kyle can remove the "_" from _usec_delay PS: I don't know much about stack levels. Matt. On Feb 25, 5:02 am, Joep Suijs <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > We have a nice delay library, but many examples use the internal > _usec_delay() procedure. I can imagine the generated blink examples do > so to remove as much complexity (dependancy) out as possible. But I > don't understand why the library is not used with other samples. First > of all, the underscore indicates it is intended for internal use, so > it is bad habit to use it in samples since it educates people to use > it. Secondly, each use of _usec_delay() generates it own loop for the > requested delay so frequent use of it in large programs makes the > target code larger then required. And last but not least, delays in > samples are generally over 1ms (and often over 100ms) and express > those in microseconds does not make your program more readable. Or > don't you agree delay_1ms(500) or delay_100ms(5) easier to read then > _usec_delay(500000) ? > > So I suggest that we don't use _use_delay() like all other procedures > starting with an underscore in samples, unless there is a good reaseon > for. > What do you think? > > 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.
