On 1 February 2012 14:36, Erik Christiansen <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> because having a documented grammar in the parser would only allow
> run-time _extending_the_rs274ngc_interpreter_by_remapping_codes. It
> would only permit remapping of standard gcodes by changing the grammar.
> But the need to remap gcodes half way through a swarf-making job,
> without allowing a compile, is probably a rare requirement.

I think there might be some confusion here, between LinuxCNC "compile
time" and "run time" and G-code "compile time" and "run time"
Currently LinuxCNC G-code grammar can be changed at LinuxCNC run-time.
I don't think there are any plans yet to re-define the G-code from
inside G-code. but then you couild probably extend G-code to include
commands for extending G-code. In principle a User M-code could do it.


-- 
atp
The idea that there is no such thing as objective truth is, quite simply, wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Reply via email to