On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 15:24, Chris Morley <chrisinnana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if using $-1 to select all spindles would be a better idea. Possibly. I am certainly open to persuasion. My initial idea was a bitmask, but I concluded that the average G-code programmer might look askance at that. > Then a program for a single spindle machine runs the same on a multi spindle > machine. This is already the case, as long as the G-code does not specify an S-word with a $ sign. > I actually would not expect M5 to stop all spindles, though I certainly can > see the argument for it to. > Though again M5 %-1 I think would be better, as again explicit is better. I was largely working on a principle of "least surprise" but, of course, can only say what would surprise me. One criterion was that existing G-code on existing single-spindle machines would look and work exactly the same. There are two ways to do that, to make all spindle commands assume spindle zero, or to make all spindle commands assume all spindles. The latter can't really work for G33, G76 etc. And I decided not to do it that way for S. So it is fair to say that I settled on an inconsistent set of rules. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912 _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
