Section 2 of the O-codes manual specifically says that comments should NOT be used on the same line as an o-code. http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.8/html/gcode/o-code.html#ocode:comments
But that isn't necessarily the cause of your problem. I also can't comment on if what you had ever did or should have worked before. But I've not seen any examples set up that way, to suggest doing so was allowed. (It does "look" wrong to me though.) Todd Zuercher P. Graham Dunn Inc. 630 Henry Street Dalton, Ohio 44618 Phone: (330)828-2105ext. 2031 -----Original Message----- From: Alan Condit <condit.a...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:49 AM To: Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Emc-users] Apparent changes in gcode in Linuxcnc 2.8.0 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Be sure links are safe. I tried to send this earlier but it doesn’t appear to have gone through. So, here goes again. I have a bunch of wizards that I have written under 2.7 and under 2.8 they won’t work. The biggest change is that you used to be able to write the subroutine declaration as O< CutBevel > SUB [1] [2] [3] like a formal declaration of parameters. Now I have to go through and make all of them just comments like O<CutBevel> SUB ([1] [2] [3]). The following is a wizard I just modified that won’t load. It reports an unknown word where a unary operation could be at about line 99. Can anyone tell me what I did wrong? Here is a link to CutBevel.ngc <https://pastebin.com/xnTGreUX>. Alan _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
