You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Not sure how possible this is, but a #![no_std] option seems potentially useful. Could allow you to make more accurate sensor readings in IoT networks by taking into account local variances to decide measurement tolerances (like reading pressure or temp to determine the accuracy of other readings the device could do).
That way your receiver that processes off the info doesn't have to do an educated guess on the tolerances per device (because you might have different sensors with different tolerances), it'd instead be encoded in the data stream for it to parse.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
That sounds like a really useful option to have, especially since this library will be most useful for applications on sensor data. I don't have a lot of experience with #![no_std] myself, but I think this should be possible (or mostly possible).
The only thing that currently requires std is BoxedUncertain (it uses a Rc under the hood), and possible rand (I think they have a no_std option, but that's something to check).
Not sure how possible this is, but a
#![no_std]
option seems potentially useful. Could allow you to make more accurate sensor readings in IoT networks by taking into account local variances to decide measurement tolerances (like reading pressure or temp to determine the accuracy of other readings the device could do).That way your receiver that processes off the info doesn't have to do an educated guess on the tolerances per device (because you might have different sensors with different tolerances), it'd instead be encoded in the data stream for it to parse.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: