re:re:Re: gcode comments

Smoke,

I have MANY books of gcodes! AND copies of the actual standards, as adopted at various times over the years...

You are correct that there 'should' always be some holes left for "user" functions. That is the basis of any growing/evolving language.
The coalescing I am speaking of is when several different Gcode numbers are "used up" doing the same thing(by different mfr's)!

There has not been an "official" update to the rs-274 standard since the early eighties! Since then, many codes which "used to be" necessary have become obsolete(because of better computer capability) and others not included in the "standard" have become ubiquitous (meaning they are used universally, or nearly so).

Hope this helps.

Ballendo

P.S. The quote about 'nailing down' is not mine... (I believe we CAN nail down the "common codes", which WILL leave room for development and variation. Variation is NOT bad; UN NECESSARY variation is bad!

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Smoke" <gordonr@r...> wrote:
> Personally, I don't think "coalescing" the Gcodes is a good ideas.
> There are quite a few Gcode numbers (as well as Mcodes) that were
> SPECIFICALLY left unassigned for user.
> I have a book listing all the codes. This listing is based on EIA 274-D.
>
> >IMO, this is not the best way to approach this. We "should" try to coalesce
> (gather together) the g code usage, rather than make it easy to keep it
> different.
>
>
> Are you refeering to "Mcodes" that can't be nailed down?
>
> >>its the codes used to call those functions that we can't nail down
>
> >Ballendo
> >