On 10-09-22 09:38 AM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
> On 2010-09-22 14:42, Rolf wrote:
>   =20
>> On 10-09-22 08:16 AM, David Duffy (AVD) wrote:
>>     =20
>>> Rolf wrote:
>>>
>>>       =20
>>>> Good point. All writes to PORTx are written to the latch anyway, so cl=
rf
>>>> PORTx is identical to clrf LATx
>>>>
>>>> The port pin diagrams indicate that fact as well.
>>>>
>>>> Further, all analog pins read as '0', all digital pins read the state =
of
>>>> the signal (which for outputs may be a mis-match to the LATx value if
>>>> you have slow-changing signal lines...).
>>>>
>>>> But, in all cases, clrf PORTx =3D=3D clrf LATx
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, it's not an error to do it twice... and further,
>>>> operations other than 'clrf' on PORTx will/may produce a different
>>>> result than the same operation on LATx... so perhaps it is good practi=
ce
>>>> to treat them 'both' explicitly in the initialization routine...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         =20
>>> Sorry, you're confusing me now!  How would MOVWF PORTx and MOVWF LATx
>>> ever end in a different result?
>>> David...
>>>
>>>       =20
>> Well, movwf is not a great example,...
>>     =20
> It's a *perfect* example of "operations other than 'clrf'" !
> *Any* other operation is an operation "other than 'clrf'"...
>
>   =20
>> When I said 'operations other than clrf' I did not mean...
>>     =20
> How the heck should we know what you *ment* ??
> We can (of course) only know what you actualy *wrote*.
> And what you wrote was simply wrong.
>
> Why not simply say "OK, I was unclear, sorry" instead
> of trying to defend what you wrote ? Than there hadn't
> been any reason for this and other posts...
>
>
> Jan-Erik.
>
>   =20

Holy cow, Jan-Erik.

Two things...

1. what part of ...

>  When I said 'operations other than clrf' I did not mean*every*  other
>  operation other than clrf... just 'at least some'.

does not translate to "OK I was unclear".

2. In what way was I trying to say that my original statement was right for=
 all operations i.e. 'defending it'

Now that you have direclty attacked my mails, and are challenging it, perha=
ps I should defend it....

What I wrote was not 'simply wrong'. You (and David) chose to interpret "an=
d further, operations
other than 'clrf'" to mean "every other operation", yet, for it to have tha=
t meaning, it would have to be written:

"every other operation other than 'clrf'"

Think about it... If I say "numbers other than 10 are wholly divisible by 5=
" that statement is true!

So, get yourself a happy pill, and chill.

Indeed, you have said the exact same thing I did... let me quote:

"Than[sic] there hadn't[sic] been any reason for this and other posts..."

What I assume you mean by this was that *some* other posts may not have bee=
n necessary....

.... but, if I interpret your statement in the same way you interpreted mine=
, then *every* other mail on PICList is unnecessary.

So what did you mean! Apologize for your inadequacies !!!!


Rolf



--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.