I guess there is something about in-no-sense
I look at that bit of numerics and read out loud to myself.
line 118 "if line 104 is less or equal to 2 times line 102
line 119 "if line 102 is greater than line 116
line 102 "equals line 104 divided by 2
line 119 "end if"
li
On Friday 11 September 2009, Andy Pugh wrote:
>2009/9/11 Erik Christiansen :
>> Meaningful variable names are the first to fifth rules of programming.
>> Even assembler language, in the depths of last century, had 'em.
>
>No it didn't! (though some assemblers might have implemented labels, I
> supp
Ah yes programming with C
and X, I, V,L and M
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Kenneth Lerman
wrote:
> You had hexadecimal. We had to program in decimal before hex was
> invented. :-)
>
> (In Roman Numerals.) :-)
>
> Ken
>
> Andy Pugh wrote:
> > 2009/9/11 Erik Christiansen :
> >
> >
> >> Mean
You had hexadecimal. We had to program in decimal before hex was
invented. :-)
(In Roman Numerals.) :-)
Ken
Andy Pugh wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Erik Christiansen :
>
>
>> Meaningful variable names are the first to fifth rules of programming.
>> Even assembler language, in the depths of last centu
2009/9/11 Erik Christiansen :
> Meaningful variable names are the first to fifth rules of programming.
> Even assembler language, in the depths of last century, had 'em.
No it didn't! (though some assemblers might have implemented labels, I suppose)
(I remember programming in raw hex. Wouldn't wa
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:31:24AM +0100, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>
> O118 if [#104 LE [2*#102]]
> O119 if [#102 GT #116]
> #102 = [#104/2]
> O119 endif
> O118 endif
>
> are totally meaningless unless you're a programmer.
They're also meaningless to
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:41:57 -0400, you wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>
>>
>> >http://jmkasunich.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2008/03/31
>> >
>> >This should answer some of the questions. :-)
>>
>> Yea it does - that style of code is almost unique to Linux Guru's and
>> nev
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:04:35 -0700, you wrote:
>http://jmkasunich.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2008/03/31
>
>This should answer some of the questions. :-)
Yea it does - that style of code is almost unique to Linux Guru's and
never seen in rest of the commercial world.
Explains why K was used.
Steve Bla
2009/9/8 Frank Tkalcevic :
> How is this used when I want to move 15mm in Z, and 3mm in X to turn my
> tapered thread? For a 5mm pitch thread, K would be 5mm/rev in the Z
> direction and 1mm/rev in the X direction. (just some sample numbers)
Does the EMC version of G33 take I and K? I think that
Hi Frank,
Take a look at this link;
You have to page down to get past the birds .
http://jmkasunich.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2008/03/31
This should answer some of the questions. :-)
HTH
Dave
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 08:37 +1000, Frank Tkalcevic wrote:
> Can G33 be used for tapered threads? I
Can G33 be used for tapered threads? I remember a short while ago someone
wanted to do taper threads with G76, but couldn't and G33 was suggested.
The documention says
> For spindle-synchronized motion in one direction, code G33 X-
> Y- Z- K- where K gives the dis- tance moved in XYZ for each
11 matches
Mail list logo
