...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:33:53 -0400
From: linux...@thinkingdevices.com
To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Uncondiftional , Conditional Program Jumps .
I was a bit surprised to see that LinuxCNC didn't have an unconditional
jump, ie a GOTO. I
Cecil
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Bowman [mailto:marcus.bow...@visible.eclipse.co.uk]
Sent: 02 October 2014 11:59 PM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Uncondiftional , Conditional Program Jumps .
On 2 Oct 2014, at 18:32, andy pugh wrote:
On 2 October
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Bowman [mailto:marcus.bow...@visible.eclipse.co.uk]
Sent: 02 October 2014 11:59 PM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Uncondiftional , Conditional Program Jumps .
On 2 Oct 2014, at 18:32, andy pugh wrote:
On 2 October 2014 17:59
On 03.10.14 04:55, Chris Morley wrote:
I tend to agree with you. bad use of goto is .. bad.
good and sparse use of goto is fine, possibly good.
Ah, awareness ... good to see on a thread with a sad amount of
misinformed absolutism.
For any still under the thrall of absolutist teaching in their
-
From: alex chiosso [mailto:achio...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 October 2014 09:35 AM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Uncondiftional , Conditional Program Jumps .
Honestly I don't understand what evil is inside the GOTO statement to be
rejected .
As I told before so many
Hi Erik .
Nice terms usage (GOTO-phobia) .
You explained the concept clearly and effectively .
Alex
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On 03.10.14 04:55, Chris Morley wrote:
I tend to agree with you. bad use of goto is .. bad.
good and sparse
On 3 October 2014 09:24, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
Not for nought is it
said that a determined programmer can write fortran in any language.
You have seen the FORTRAN++ that makes up the bulk of the NML code in
LinuxCNC then?
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you don't own
On 3 October 2014 08:08, alex chiosso achio...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder to know how difficult is to implement the GOTO logical operators
within the LCNC G Code interpreter.
The first question is how you would define the target position. As
LinuxCNC G-code doesn't pay attention to line numbers
On 03.10.14 10:19, andy pugh wrote:
On 3 October 2014 09:24, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
Not for nought is it
said that a determined programmer can write fortran in any language.
You have seen the FORTRAN++ that makes up the bulk of the NML code in
LinuxCNC then?
On 03.10.14 10:29, andy pugh wrote:
But, this leaves no scope for the (I shudder to mention this even
amongst GOTO advocates) computed GOTO.
ISTM that the computed GOTO went extinct around the time that the more
structured switch statement invaded that ecological niche in the
programming world.
On 3 October 2014 11:38, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
said that a determined programmer can write fortran in any language.
You have seen the FORTRAN++ that makes up the bulk of the NML code in
LinuxCNC then?
Errr ... is that relevant to the context?
It was a joke. Or an
On Friday 03 October 2014 05:29:11 andy pugh did opine
And Gene did reply:
On 3 October 2014 08:08, alex chiosso achio...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder to know how difficult is to implement the GOTO logical
operators within the LCNC G Code interpreter.
The first question is how you would
On Friday 03 October 2014 06:59:31 Erik Christiansen did opine
And Gene did reply:
On 03.10.14 10:29, andy pugh wrote:
But, this leaves no scope for the (I shudder to mention this even
amongst GOTO advocates) computed GOTO.
ISTM that the computed GOTO went extinct around the time that the
Seems to me every language has a GOTO that is not called a GOTO rather the
GOTO is embedded in an if/then etc
Also, fortran is Formula Translation? If so, then every attempt at
translating a mathematical algorithm into the 'language of choice' would
necessarily 'look' like fortran. no?
On
On 3 October 2014 10:29, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
In the interpreter at the moment the loop ends are matched by number.
O100 while - O100 endwhile etc. In the context of GOTO it guess that
you would need an O101 GOTO to jump to your O101 LABEL.
If you fancy having a go, the O-word
Seems to be briefly mentioned in the manual...
http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gcode/o-code.html#sec:looping
JT
On 10/3/2014 7:14 AM, andy pugh wrote:
On 3 October 2014 10:29, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
In the interpreter at the moment the loop ends are matched by number.
O100 while
On 03.10.14 12:06, andy pugh wrote:
On 3 October 2014 11:38, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
said that a determined programmer can write fortran in any language.
You have seen the FORTRAN++ that makes up the bulk of the NML code in
LinuxCNC then?
Errr ... is that
On 3 October 2014 13:24, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
There wouldn't be much of it in your engine controllers?
That used to all be C, now it is mainly auto-generated C produced from
Simulink models.
For some reason we get given the C (in pdf format!) rather than the
model as
Understanding the history of where we came from is important to me to
have a framework to see how to go into the future.
The origins of the G-Code 'language' goes back to the use of paper
tape (that is what my Dad used 40+ years ago and it was well
established then).
Yes, G-code isn't modern or
On Friday 03 October 2014 08:24:15 Erik Christiansen did opine
And Gene did reply:
On 03.10.14 12:06, andy pugh wrote:
On 3 October 2014 11:38, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net
wrote:
said that a determined programmer can write fortran in any
language.
You have seen the
On Friday 03 October 2014 08:34:44 andy pugh did opine
And Gene did reply:
On 3 October 2014 13:24, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net
wrote:
There wouldn't be much of it in your engine controllers?
That used to all be C, now it is mainly auto-generated C produced from
Simulink
Hi to all.
After a few days and no answer at all I have to deduce that the argument is
not interesting. :-(
I've checked out the jump functionality (within the G code) used from
several CNCs on the market (Fanuc,Siemens ,Heidenhain,Fagor ...) and it is
present.
Believe it or not this is really
On 2 October 2014 17:59, alex chiosso achio...@gmail.com wrote:
I've checked out the jump functionality (within the G code) used from
several CNCs on the market (Fanuc,Siemens ,Heidenhain,Fagor ...) and it is
present.
Nearly every other programming language either does not have a
jump/goto or
On 2 Oct 2014, at 18:32, andy pugh wrote:
On 2 October 2014 17:59, alex chiosso achio...@gmail.com wrote:
I've checked out the jump functionality (within the G code) used from
several CNCs on the market (Fanuc,Siemens ,Heidenhain,Fagor ...) and it is
present.
Nearly every other
IMHO, GOTOs aren't bad. They are used poorly. Most situations they
are not needed, but in languages without do-while or do-until type
loops, they do help.
I am not advocating use of GOTOs or similar technologies (one guy
suggested a 'COMEFROM' ... some tek ideas don't every fly). But using
it
I was a bit surprised to see that LinuxCNC didn't have an unconditional
jump, ie a GOTO. I chalked it up to LinuxCNC being written by
programmers, and the structured programming Nazis have beaten it into
their heads that GOTO statements are evil, and only stupid BASIC
spaghetti programmers
On 10/2/2014 8:33 PM, Bruce Layne wrote:
way back in 1978. I had read the
entire textbook the summer before my freshman year. Near the end of the
class, I used a GOTO in one of my programming assignments. The teaching
assistant went nuts. My PL/C program was returned, and she had circled
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:33:53 -0400
From: linux...@thinkingdevices.com
To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Uncondiftional , Conditional Program Jumps .
I was a bit surprised to see that LinuxCNC didn't have an unconditional
jump, ie a GOTO. I chalked it up
28 matches
Mail list logo
