Tim,
When you say
That leaves two options available.
below, you create a "false dilemma" ( ).
There are at least THREE (3) options, a third has already been suggested that will address your concern.
Again, should you wish help with programming, ask.? I expect I'll not be replying further to this argument.
Daniel KB3MUN
On 5/16/2018 10:28, Tim Gorman wrote:
Jack,
This makes no sense. If it's a
body of code that supports conditional compiles, whomever is
compiling the code can turn features on or off. There's a "stock"
body of code that is what HF Signals will ship. If it does support
toggling features in and out of that body of code via conditional
compiles, what the hell does John Doe have to do with your software
needs? If you are saying that John Doe wants your features AND
features you turned off, that's his problem, not yours or HF Signals.
Huh? If John Doe wants to use my software then it is *his* conditional
compile that is in question, not my software.
I AM NOT TURNING OFF ANYTHING! I need to be able to transmit a CW
signal. That leaves two options available. Either I use the existing CW
transmit functionality -- WHICH THE USER CAN TURN OFF -- or I duplicate
it in my software.
If I am also going to use my software in a fixed functionality
environment then I'll need to write two versions. Something I do *not*
want to do.
I
never said anything about "future software additions". In reality, I
know that the Nano will never be able to do all that I want the ?BITX
to do, so I did something about it. Al and I built a board with 1Mb
of flash, 256K of SRAM, 4K of EEPROM, a 180MHz clock, and over 50 I/O
lines. That's my "crapshoot" because I knew neither the standard nor
Ian's code would even come close to what I have in mind. Sounds to me
like you should be doing the same thing. Look for a new processor
that suits your needs and start coding for it if the current code
doesn't do what you want and conditional compiles won't help. Once
again, since your goals fall outside the current (pending??)
solution, it is your problem.
I don't need a new processor. I need a software load with fixed
functionality so I don't have to duplicate everything I might need.
You are admitting that Ian's software is pushing the limits of the nano
requiring some features to be excluded in order to fit the memory space
but are advocating for it to become the standard software load?
Does that mean you think Ashhar should move to a different processor as
well? Does that mean that all those that have purchased the current
model will have to buy a new processor and daughter-board if they want
to keep up with future developments?
