I'm at a loss...
https://godoc.org/gobot.io/x/gobot#Eventer
I think the first thing is that I'm not sure I understand how to diagnose
this codehow to validate it's doing what I think it may or may not be
doing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I put a fmt.Println() at the beginning and end of that work function and
they both print, so it appears they are only running once...then it's no
longer waiting for input.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this
>
> Not sure
>
It's fairly common demo code that more then a few people have used.
Maybe it's wrong...
> https://godoc.org/gobot.io/x/gobot/drivers/gpio#ButtonDriver
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe fro
Hmm... I actually looked at that .On method. It does in fact call
Subscribe(), then spawns a go routine. Strange, so maybe it is a device
specific issue.
Maybe try to move those .On handlers before the work := func() block, just
in case...
On Monday, 12 February 2018 00:41:58 UTC-5, Silviu Ca
Hi Curtis,
I used to play a bit with a Beaglebone Black a few years ago, but it's now
gathering dust at my father's place. I really liked it at the time.
Can you double check that you are correctly using your *work := func() ...*
construct ?
Here's what that documentation of the gobot.NewRobot
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, wrote:
>
> I'm building a package that depends on Go's runtime package. Using the
> following compilation flags:
>
> CGO_ENABLED=0 GOOS=freebsd GOARCH=amd64
>
> I get a successful compilation using go1.9.2. After updating to go1.9.4, I
> get the following error an
Did you try with CGO_ENABLED=1
Also, maybe CC= needs a valuelike gcc.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.co
Did you try with CGO_ENABLED=1
Also, maybe CC= needs a valuelike gcc.
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Matt R. wrote:
>
> I'm building a package that depends on Go's runtime package. Using the
> following compilation flags:
>
> CGO_ENABLED=0 GOOS=freebsd GOARCH=amd64
>
> I g
I'm building a package that depends on Go's runtime package. Using the
following compilation flags:
CGO_ENABLED=0 GOOS=freebsd GOARCH=amd64
I get a successful compilation using go1.9.2. After updating to go1.9.4, I
get the following error and compilation stops:
# runtime
cgo.go:9:3: //go:cgo_e
Hi all
I am looking for a Senior Backend Developer (Golang Expert) for our amazing
Unity Studio down in the New Forest (Nr Southampton, UK). The guys there
are involved in flexible multiplayer hosting solutions for AAA Video Games.
This is a priority role for Unity Technologies and benefits in
Anybody out there have any experience with BeagleBone Black and gobot?
I need some advice on how I could go about troubleshooting this...or if you
know what the issue is, etc...
I have a very simple Gobot/GPIO Button circuit.
It should show output when button is pushed and then again when relea
That's a really nice trick. Thanks for sharing.
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:48:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Houston wrote:
>
> If you're using Bash or some other unix-y shell which supports it, you can
> produce the same effect with built-in syntax:
>
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/64011
>
> In
Thank you. That’s what I was looking for, I didn’t know it was added in 1.9.
Will checkout on 1.9.
Thanks
Rajesh
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, rajesh nataraja wrote:
>>
>> Yes I understand the strict type ch
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, rajesh nataraja wrote:
>
> Yes I understand the strict type checking. But in the absence of macros, the
> code becomes extremely awkward and sometimes the simplicity that we beg for
> gets undermined.
> My intention trying to do this was two things:
> 1. Reduce my
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, rajesh nataraja
wrote:
> Yes I understand the strict type checking. But in the absence of macros,
> the code becomes extremely awkward and sometimes the simplicity that we
> beg for gets undermined.
> My intention trying to do this was two things:
> 1. Reduce my
Yes I understand the strict type checking. But in the absence of macros, the
code becomes extremely awkward and sometimes the simplicity that we beg for
gets undermined.
My intention trying to do this was two things:
1. Reduce my line length in the code
2. Avoid making changes to all parts of t
If you're using Bash or some other unix-y shell which supports it, you can
produce the same effect with built-in syntax:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/64011
In Bash, you can use the command1 <( command0 ) redirection syntax, which
> redirects command0's stdout and passes it to a command1 tha
17 matches
Mail list logo
