| ??? 01/21/05 13:54 Read: times |
#85498 - If it worked! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I said:
What about the simultaneous approach? Erik Malund said:
It would even be better (no switch statement, no parameter passed, less codespace) Well of course - that's why I suggested it! ;-) However, I think there are limitations to its applicability - which is why I'd be interested if Leon has actually looked at it and determined that it will not work in his application. It's an idea that I had a while back, but have never actually tried in practice... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| sbit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I do not understand | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You mean Dallas 1-Wire? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What's the problem? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think that... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indirect bit addressing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The same iButton on all 3? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sbit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| access all 3 , one at a time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I had the same problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lets try again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Need ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There is always the switch statement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| something like this... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simultaneous example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use MASK rather than bit address | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oooops, sorry... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Multiple 1Wire | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How to post code, and possible hang-up | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| simultaneous? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| would even be better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If it worked! | 01/01/70 00:00 |