Greetings, On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:54:39 +0100, Joep Suijs wrote > 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 would be very difficult (read: impossible) to do efficiently if at all. > 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. Right, but the overhead for many delays is negligible and could be outweighed by the overhead of a function call. > > Maybe Kyle can remove the "_" from _usec_delay > Please not. The underscore is appropriate for this procedure. There seems to be a misconception here. '_' just means, `provided by or for the compiler.' It doesn't mean no one else can use the name. I wanted a convention to avoid name collisions with existing code. This is much like all names beginning with 'str' are reserved in C. --kyle -- 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.
