Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> I'm sure y'all can improve on this; suggestions,
>> counter-arguments, insults, etc. are all welcome.
> 
> Well, for the distance you were talking of doing this over originally, I 
> cannot see the need for this complexity to get it down to one wire, from the 
> two wire of the TI-calculator system. It seems to me that it may possibly 
> need more processor overhead as well, without going to the extent of a 
> worked example. 

I agree.  I think mine fits the requirements, but the requirements are 
wrong.  :)  Fun exercise, though!

I'll probably use the TI calculator system in practice.

> But for a long time I have considered this to be an ideal comms format for 
> off loading a function (such as front panel or LCD display handling) from a 
> "main" processor, without requiring I2C or SPI hardware, and yet requiring 
> minimal software. 

I think you're right - mine doesn't improve on that except in the case 
where lines are expensive, which seems unusual unless the lines are 
long, in which case it doesn't work (or you'll need to really tweak it).
-- 
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist