Yea he has! On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 09:36 -0400, Ron Ginger wrote: > Jon, Ray, some others may recall Ive been beating this > drum for years, starting back at NAMES several years ago with my Win 3.1 > VB code to mimic the Acurite control.
One of the things that often happens in these parts is that some folk are much more comfortable with software programming with it's loops and jumps and fancy maths and find g-code to be awkward. I don't have a problem with that and supported the O word as an extension to the interpreter even though there was no precedent/equivalent in the world of g-code. Someone mentioned that "conversational" front ends tend to produce g-code programs to run. This is not true of Mazatrol. There are abilities in Mazatrol that are not available in g-code. This leads me to think that Mazak uses two different interpreters. I don't see this as at all bad. We also have two interpreters. What I do find disturbing is the attempt to bypass the interpreter entirely. My thoughts here will be old hat to many readers. I'm really bothered by some scripting language telling to machine to go to x3000m without testing that command to the limits of the device as recorded in a configuration file somewhere. At the same time there is no regular error feedback to tell the operator to f*6k off. When we get around to writing this "graphical" interpreter and making it a part of the code we release, let's make certain it conforms to the same sort of error checking our existing interpreters use -- or better yet just make it use canterp. Ray ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
