Hi Matt, 2010/2/25 mattschinkel <[email protected]>: > I use _usec_delay for everything because I do not like the delay > library. You can't argue about taste...
> 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. This is what I like: a procedure suitable for the case at hand. If I need a delay of seconds, I don't want to specify it in microseconds. But you are right: there are a lot of delay routines. I use delay_1ms() a lot. > 2. I do not need to include. That's only one line, two words! You can't be serious... > The correct solution to me would be to create one procedure to do it > all (allthough this may be impossible?). The problem is that it uses memory at each use. so 15 times _usec_delay() means 15 times a delay loop. It is always inline. delay.jal has call-able routines, but has overhead (calling and looping) that also vary (in time) when the clock speed varies. This makes delay.jal less accurate, especially for short delays. But that is hardly ever an issue (and if it is, do use _usec_delay!) > Maybe Kyle can remove the "_" from _usec_delay Please not. The underscore is appropriate for this procedure. 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.
