On 10.07.17 10:34, andy pugh wrote:
> On 10 July 2017 at 03:24, Todd Zuercher
> <zuerc...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how much it really matters how you get it done, just so it
> > works. There is no industry consensus on how it should be done, and every
> > machine builder does it their own way with different codes.
>
> That was my conclusion, and was also why I quite like the N or $
> approaches, as they don't interfere with any re-mapping that folk
> might want to use to match existing controls.
> (This is also true of the (*spindle3) idea)
Except that the last idea screws up comments, as comments have to be
scrutinised by the reader to find obfuscated commands. As well, certain
comment text becomes prohibited comments because those comments are not
comments, but commands masquerading as comments. It is a path to hell, I
suggest. Our gcode will then be as good as perl - "write-only code".
Not only does $ have an 'S' for spindle, but it has a spindle passing
through it. And it is a command in the command space of the language,
which seems a useful attribute. (But then I may have spent too many
years as a programmer.)
Erik
--
Hell is other people's Perl.
-- Linux Journal - Dec. 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
