Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: Re: EMC G1 problem.
Posted by
dave engvall
on 2001-06-03 22:48:08 UTC
Ray wrote:
Well maybe not. Someplace back up in the code you gave it a G1, it found a X position value and parsed the Z and then a -
sign....which may have defaulted to a - 0.0 in Z.
Clearly if the minus sign had not been there then it should have reported a null value or token but since it found something it may
have not known the difference.
Indeed, ideally, it should test for a finite value of the argument but....
Dave
Well maybe not. Someplace back up in the code you gave it a G1, it found a X position value and parsed the Z and then a -
sign....which may have defaulted to a - 0.0 in Z.
Clearly if the minus sign had not been there then it should have reported a null value or token but since it found something it may
have not known the difference.
Indeed, ideally, it should test for a finite value of the argument but....
Dave
>
> >Seems like EMC should have given an error message though.
>
> I'll vote for that!!! Thanks for the info.
>
> Ray
>
Discussion Thread
Art Fenerty
2001-06-01 13:39:02 UTC
Re: EMC G1 problem.
Jon Elson
2001-06-01 14:58:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: EMC G1 problem.
Art Fenerty
2001-06-01 15:18:03 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: EMC G1 problem.
Ray
2001-06-02 07:43:44 UTC
Re: Re: Re: EMC G1 problem.
William Scalione
2001-06-02 22:59:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: EMC G1 problem.
dave engvall
2001-06-03 22:48:08 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: Re: Re: EMC G1 problem.
Ray
2001-06-05 16:45:08 UTC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EMC G1 problem.