On 09/08/2016 07:48 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:45:56AM -0700, Kirk Wallace wrote: >> I'm not following the above well. Let's take the first item in the >> manual's G76 error list. >> http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.7/html/gcode/g-code.html#gcode:g76 >> >> "... >> It is an error if: >> >> The active plane is not the ZX plane >> ..." >> >> Currently, the interp_convert.cc code contents for G76 doesn't seem to >> check for the active plane. In running g-code I can set any plane and >> G76 runs normally, (although the active g-codes box always switches to >> indicate G17 when the cycle starts). >> >> So, should the line about the active plane be removed from the G76 >> manual entry because it's not really an error. > > You are making statements about how what happens after you do something > the manual states "is an error", i.e., is an example of a mistaken part > program. > > I think this particular item falls into the third class of thing I tried > to explain: By saying that it is an error to program any plane but G18, > a *future* verison of LinuxCNC can define new and different behavior if > a different plane is selected. One example that comes to mind is that > e.g., G18.1 G76 could do something new and wonderful: thread with > the WU axes instead of the ZX axes.
I see the manual entry as a guide to to someone that wants to know what G76 does and how to use it. Currently, programing an active plane does nothing with G76, so a user might get confused when the manual states that it is dependent on G18, then finds out it makes no difference. > If you remove this notice from the documentation today, then we don't > have the freedom to do this in a new version, ever. You can always change the manual when the status of G76 changes. I added a D parameter for tapered threads that works along with the end tapers. If it works out, the plan was to update the manual to include the new feature. > That is why I wouldn't remove such a notice from the documentation > unless there's a benefit to doing so, and the benefit from that is > larger than approximately the benefit of any *new* behavior that could > be defined for that in the future, TIMES the odds of someone actually > deciding to implement it. > > Jeff It's no big deal to me. I'm getting G76 to do what I need. I thought I could gain more insight by exploring the issues that were not clear. -- Kirk Wallace http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
