#include<reg51.h> #include<string.h> #include<stdio.h> #define lcd_data P1 sbit rs=P2^0; sbit rw=P2^1; sbit en=P2^2; unsigned char n[5]="hello"; unsigned char m[]="welcome rakesh"; void cmd_lcd(unsigned char); void write_lcd(char); void delay(unsigned int); void lcd_int() { cmd_lcd(0x38); cmd_lcd(0x0c); cmd_lcd(0x01); cmd_lcd(0x80); } void cmd_lcd(unsigned char x) { x=lcd_data; rs=0; rw=0; en=1; delay(50); en=0; }
void write_lcd(char s) {
s=lcd_data; rs=1; rw=0; en=1; delay(500); en=0; } void delay(unsigned int temp) { unsigned int i,j; for(i=0;i<255;i++); for(j=0;j<temp;j++); }
void main() { void lcd_int(); void write_lcd(n); void delay(500); void cmd_lcd(0x01); void delay(100); void write_lcd(m); void delay(100); }
this code shows following error: Build target 'Target 1' compiling lcdc04.c... LCDC04.C(50): error C161: 'n': formal parameter ignored Target not created
please help me in clearing this...
The problem wasn't that he missed an important issue with the line. The problem was that he came back again, a second time claiming that a call was made
On that we obviously disagree. Yes, he missed an important issue at first. But he also raised a perfectly valid (and arguably equally important) issue. He also added:
(Rakesh mate. look at the void.)
Not a bad clue.
I just hope that the negative responses he received do not deter him from attempting to be helpful in the future.
We may disagree. But I really can not for the life of me see any issue with receiving the answer "No, he doesn't." when that is correct. There really has to be a limit to how sensitive people may be if they want to log on to the net or leave their home and take a stroll.
"(Rakesh mate. look at the void.)
Not a bad clue."
i should have told too parents the void for better clue.
look man.
why do you pretend to be me? it is not cool.
whatever. you probably feel very small and want to feel big.
He also added:
That he did. After twice claiming the opposite. And when he finally admitted his mistake, he made every effort to avoid it being noticed: an extremely vague hint, in parentheses, in the middle of an unrelated argument.
That's not a clue: it's somebody doing his best to avoid the notion that he proclaimed nonsense twice in a row, now hedging his bets by dropping a vague hint pointing in the direction of where he's now beginning to see his mistake must have lain.
That he did. After twice claiming the opposite. ...
LMFAO.
Would you give me your address? I would like to forward you a series of books on a collection of subjects to help you with your apparent deficiencies.
"LMFAO."
You should stick with acting. Your man-fly portrayal was funny.
Ah, I see what you did there. You took my name and likened it to the actor in the film "The Fly"; a Jeff Goldblum.
How witty.
It seems that this forum does not permit beginners helping beginners
permit? sure, but when the result is the blind leading the deaf, some comment should be anticipated.
Erik
... but when the result is the blind leading the deaf ...
Thanks. You proved my point quite nicely.
Me too.
Jameel first: "you call write_lcd with n." Jameel second: "// calling write_lcd with n"
Let's see, that makes twice. Count much, Jeff?
Zeusti.
The opposite claim counter.
Someone at temps to impersonanate me!
Why?
I AM NOT TAKING ANY SIDE IN THE DISCUSIEN
Always yo're friend.
I would like to forward you a series of books on a collection of subjects to help you with your apparent deficiencies.
You better keep those. It would be irresponsible of me to deprive you of those learning materials. You clearly need them more.
You clearly need them more.
Stop. Stop already. My sides can't take much more of it.
"Stop. Stop already. My sides can't take much more of it."
A truly mature and masterful reply, it's just so well done. You have closed this thread showing incredible skills.
A truly mature and masterful reply, it's just so well done.
At least I am mature enough to use my real name.
Google does a very good job of revealing what you are about.