Page 1 of 2
Current wish list
Posted: 18 Feb 2005 11:04
by zristic
These are the wishes we've gathered so far:
- -- MIDI support
-- I2c slave mode
-- Overloading routines
-- Bit variable + bit operations
-- Build utility (compile all units in project)
-- Possibility to rotate fonts on GLCD
-- Smart card library
-- Support for 10Fxxx PICs
-- DTMF library
-- BANKSEL command for assembly
-- Table with common register setup for most used chips.
-- ORG directive to work with library routines
-- Regular (slower) mode for I2C
-- PS2_Write routine
-- File transfer in terminal tool
-- Recompile if needed during simulation
-- Selection ident with TAB key (Editor)
-- Indicators in IDE for compiled/programmed project
-- Code folding feature in Code Editor
-- Option to switch off animated menus- sets as default in windows
-- Editor: TAB as spaces
-- Sound routine
-- PORT.Variable = ...
-- USB routines
-- Pulse_In/Out routine (done as sound routine)
-- Show procedures stack depth in Statistics
-- Programming chips from IDE
-- Software protocols: uart, spi, i2c
-- Flexibile LCD configuration
-- Driver for 8-bit LCD
-- 5ms delay in LCD library is not needed
-- FAT16 read file function
-- Floating point support
-- LCD_Out to write at current position
-- User defined tools
-- IRDA driver+example
-- Reading and writing program flash
-- BMP editor for graphic LCD
-- Variable delays
-- Constant declarations with constant expressions
-- Comments in assembly
-- Auto save option in IDE
-- Inverted soft_uart output
Italics mark what has been resolved.
Can't wait....
Posted: 11 Feb 2006 03:58
by malife
What about support for the "new" 20 pin chips as the PIC16f690 ? please !!!
Posted: 11 Feb 2006 11:55
by zristic
malife wrote:What about support for the "new" 20 pin chips as the PIC16f690
It will be added.
its is possible or only a dream ...
Posted: 11 Feb 2006 14:29
by piort
HI MP team
Its is possible to add in the spi_expand library, support for the mcp23S17 ? The support for the MCP23S08 work great but its only 8bit...
Another thing... its is possible to add in the Eternet library, support for the microchip ENC28J60 ? That will be great to work only with microchip componant ))))
THX
Re: its is possible or only a dream ...
Posted: 12 Feb 2006 20:53
by zristic
piort wrote:Its is possible to add in the spi_expand library, support for the mcp23S17 ? The support for the MCP23S08 work great but its only 8bit...
We received samples last week. This week we start to work on the library, but I do not believe it will come out in the incoming release, which is more-less already packed and ready.
Another thing... its is possible to add in the Eternet library, support for the microchip ENC28J60 ?
We are working on it too.
Posted: 15 Feb 2006 16:33
by lgrfbs
The 12F675 map in exempel map move too a "12F" map.
Some exampels for the 16F88.
Posted: 05 Apr 2006 21:14
by LGR
One thing that would be useful is a set of routines that converts time (as in RTC) between BCD HH:MM:SS DD/MM/YY format and 32-bit longint based on an arbitrary base time (00:00:00 on 01/01/00 would be usable in most cases). Thus, the longint would be the number of seconds since the base time (which would give about 63 years; the libraries would have to be adjusted in 2063).
This could be useful for timestamping files (takes 4 bytes instead of 6), and also for use with binary RTC chips. It would also facilitate time arithmetic.
So, for example, you might have a function Seconds(longtime:longint):byte Which would return the BCD justified seconds digits corresponding to the time in the argument, and you'd have a function longtime(seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, year : byte):longint to assemble the BCD digits into the binary time.
Posted: 06 Apr 2006 07:54
by zristic
lgrfbs wrote:The 12F675 map in exempel map move too a "12F" map.
Some exampels for the 16F88.
We will work on it.
Posted: 06 Apr 2006 07:55
by zristic
LGR wrote:One thing that would be useful is a set of routines that converts time (as in RTC) between BCD HH:MM:SS DD/MM/YY format and 32-bit longint based on an arbitrary base time (00:00:00 on 01/01/00 would be usable in most cases).
Great idea, just we do not have time to do it now. If anyone voluntiers to do so, please let us know.
Posted: 06 Apr 2006 11:23
by BaidareW
I don't know what other think, but in my opinion all conversation procedures (such us ByteToStr) better would be functions not procedures: Usart_Write_Text(ByteToStr(x)) then can be used. And also the string+string should be implemented and Usart_Write_Text improved: Usart_Write_Text(txt1+txt2,' ',txt3)
Still theres troubles to solve.
Posted: 06 Apr 2006 18:51
by Donald Shimoda
Text concatenate is a must in pascal compilers.
Also i STILL have troubles initializing records types (dont initializate) and with medium complexity if, by example :
if (a> 250) and (B=0) fails to work.
Sadly, theres no way to debug it, so you must imagine what is happening. I say imagine because many times the output code dont make wich you do in pascal.
Posted: 25 Apr 2006 19:21
by LGR
The possibility to make custom GLCD fonts more than 8 pixels tall would be really helpful. Not only would this allow large numeric and text displays, but you could create wingding - like icons.
It would be be acceptable to make them in increments of 8 pixels, i.e. 8, 16, 24, 32......
Posted: 12 May 2006 18:22
by malife
It would be really nice to have a Visual Initializer tool (similar to Microchip´s One) so one could configure ports, timers, interrupts and the sort via a graphical tool and then just generate an "InitializePic" procedure.
Posted: 12 May 2006 21:48
by LGR
I agree about the visual initialization tool, and that concept can extended to any an all initializations. For example, the CAN library would be a lot easier to use if there was a page full of radio buttons and check boxes that automatically generated the init procedure call. Or as another example, a wizard that allows you to define which GLCD control pins go to which I/O pins, and automatically generates the custom initialization call.
But I think I ask for too much....
Posted: 15 May 2006 09:02
by zristic
LGR wrote:But I think I ask for too much...
We rather accept such challenges than something easier.
We might work on it... Can't promise.