You're wrong kaor. Why don't you RTFM?Quote· Renamed WProgram.h to Arduino.h.Quote* The WProgram.h file, which provides declarations for the Arduino API, has been renamed to Arduino.h. To create a library that will work in both Arduino 0022 and Arduino 1.0, you can use an #ifdef that checks for the ARDUINO constant, which was 22 and is now 100. For example: #if defined(ARDUINO) && ARDUINO >= 100 #include "Arduino.h" #else #include "WProgram.h" #endif
· Renamed WProgram.h to Arduino.h.
* The WProgram.h file, which provides declarations for the Arduino API, has been renamed to Arduino.h. To create a library that will work in both Arduino 0022 and Arduino 1.0, you can use an #ifdef that checks for the ARDUINO constant, which was 22 and is now 100. For example: #if defined(ARDUINO) && ARDUINO >= 100 #include "Arduino.h" #else #include "WProgram.h" #endif
I've been reading this highly interesting thread because I've been experiencing the same problems as everybody since I switched to IDE 1.0.Does seem a shame to excessivly bad programmers like myself to have to dig into library fixing tasks when we just want to get our projects up and running. Even worse - from what I read, it sounds like the future versions of the IDE might be paying versions? What a nightmare!I've been using Arduino for 3 years and really enjoy the whole "easy to use" philosophy - I'd given up on microcontrollers after some heroic efforts on the 87C752/752 family in assembler a few years ago...I like the look and feel of the 1.0 IDE but I think I'll stick to 0023 untill things settle down a bit.Keep up the good work!And thaks for all your valuable input for people like myself
Even worse - from what I read, it sounds like the future versions of the IDE might be paying versions?
The Arduino Team considered including a WProgram.h, but ultimately they decided against it:http://code.google.com/p/arduino/issues/detail?id=609Personally, I would not have made that choice. In Teensyduino, I kept WProgram.h and also added Arduino.h, so either new or old libs can work.
yet, the changes made to Wire API, for example, have broken many of these libraries and left users who depended on them in a weird kind of ("gee, everything broke when I updated to 1.0" limbo. Would it really have been that hard to include additional methods to allow for backwards comparability with these libraries until their respective authors could have time to update them and, more important, have time for these updated libraries trickle down into all the secondary sources, projects and books that reference them.
AllIf you feel compatibility is an important issue I propose you star or comment issue 854 from Paulhttp://code.google.com/p/arduino/issues/detail?id=854I did, I hope you do Best regardsJantje
With Massimo and David seemingly against, I decided not to advocate this patch further. It's still on issue 854, and I'm planning to keep it as part of the Teensyduino installer for the forseeable future, so at least people using Teensy will automatically have pre-1.0 sketches using Wire work automatically. I honestly believe it would benefit so many Arduino users if included in the upcoming 1.0.1 release, with no practical downside. That's why I went to the trouble to create it for Teensy users, and the additional effort to prepare an issue+patch and write up a lengthy post to the developer list to advocate it. Much as I'd like to see this in Arduino 1.0.1, it's simply not my decision, nor within my ability to convince those who do.
So you think that the library authors who aren't updating their "completely broken in 1.0" libraries would have gotten around to updating their code faster, if there had been a compatibility mode that meant they didn't have to ?Sometimes a clean break is needed for anything at all to happen. :-(
Please enter a valid email to subscribe
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the subscription, please click the link in the
email we just sent you.
Thank you for subscribing!
via Egeo 16