On 10/24/2013 3:19 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote: > That's a good point about the out-of-tree users, though I wonder if it > would be better for them to use a standalone libnml version. If there's a > lot of pushback from other users, I can make the few call-by-reference > changes I need under a different name.
I'm too old to be able to say "out-of-tree users" with a straight face, but I think this is acceptable. The folks who are really divorced from LinuxCNC are probably getting posemath elsewhere anyway (like rcslib from the NIST site). Those doing robotics work who get posemath via their copies of LinuxCNC likely hang out on these lists. If big signposts in the codebase warn users the changes have been made and tell them where find the unaltered version (reference NIST or maybe just reference a particular commit in the git repo) then I think you've done due diligence what with the discussion you started here. > To be clear, a total overhaul isn't strictly necessary for the trajectory > lookahead stuff, but it would be nice to make everything consistent. > I'm a sucker for consistency (and, yes, I know the full quotation)! If you're up to the task then I'd say do it. I, for one, prefer that to adding a few functions with different names and argument protocols. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
