re:Re: re:g-code parsers

Jon E wrote:

>As far as I know, it can also be expressed as G+0001.0000 and still
>be acceptable to some systems. I'm sure others will reject that,
>however. I've even seen a few examples that had things like M05.25
>which meant something specific. Ugh!

Jon,

EMC will probably accept this since it uses the expression evaluator,
but I think you are right, others will probably reject it.

The M code you listed is ugly to be sure, but I have to say the "new
feature" (msg implemented in EMC is worse. It requires READING at
least 4 digits into a comment, as opposed to just stopping when
the "(" is encountered, and going to the next line. Since EMC reads
the whole line anyway, it SEEMS ok. But these are the 'sneaky' kinds
of things that lead to bloatware and poor performance, IMO.

Ballendo