Custom Characters #55
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Interesting. It might make sense to see how other implementations in other languages like C handle this in their libraries? |
|
I actually haven't looked at other implementations until now. It appears that the status includes the current DDRAM address. I would combine this PR with adding status fetching in that case, which would eliminate two problems at once. Though, this would first require implementing reading from the bus, which should be a separate PR. |
ColinTimBarndt
force-pushed
the
feature/custom-characters
branch
from
ec34e2b
to
d5e98f9
Compare
ColinTimBarndt
force-pushed
the
feature/custom-characters
branch
from
d5e98f9
to
99152cc
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request allows defining custom characters. Closes #8.
This branch is currently based on #54 just for convenience, but I can rebase it onto the current version as it doesn't touch anything changed in that PR.
The current implementation has the drawback that it will reset the cursor position. This is required to change the writing mode from CHRAM back to DDRAM and we are currently not keeping track of the cursor position.
It would be nice to have a second opinion on this. Should we keep track of the cursor or just accept resetting the position?