Thanks for the quick response, John. "Flow control" is a great term for
what our task planner ought to do for us.
I have seen and can easily understand how each developer, when faced
with an issue, in this case tool change, will think first about the
portion of code they are most familiar with
Ray Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'd interpose a third way -- task. Both of the above approaches
> using the HAL and the Interpreter have a good deal of merit within the
> context of each system. What is missing from each is a system wide way
> of describing the state of the machine
Mark Kenny Products Company, LLC
> 55 Main Street Voice: (203)426-7166
> Newtown, CT 06470Fax: (203)426-9138
> http://www.MarkKenny.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
> Ep
f Of Jeff
Epler
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:40 PM
To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Emc-developers] Proposal for HAL-based motion control
Is this the way we should approach sequences of motions for toolchanging
and the like? Comments, please.
HAL-BASED
Is this the way we should approach sequences of motions for toolchanging
and the like? Comments, please.
HAL-BASED MOTION CONTROL
Often, it's desirable to command a sequence of motions outside of g-code.
For instance, a number of movements may be required during a tool
c
