Hi Ben. Congratulations, you have managed to use my own words to completely
mischaracterize what my project is all about. Somehow, you managed to
ignore almost everything I wrote, quoted one sentence out of context, and
used it against me.

Also, I have to say that your vicious personal attacks against me go far
beyond anything I would have expected to read on the OpenSCAD forum. No, I
am not a psychopath. No, this project is not compensation for my small dick.

For everybody else, yes of course I understand that OpenSCAD is a
stateless, "functional" language, and that it is much easier to use than a
general purpose programming language. My design document actually states
both of these things as design goals.

On 3 July 2015 at 23:26, Ben Simons zuiopl@hotmail.com wrote:

L Boyd wrote

...if you count Tandy TRS-80 fiddling in the store, with BASIC and
cassettes, then I can count 40 odd years...I wrote a pretty good shoot-em-up
game...

Not as good as my DEC VT100 based space game I did at Uni...Shame you never
get credits for that stuff back then...

So I'm assuming I'm a bit wiser than I feel older... ;)

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.”  Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD2-design-docs-tp13019p13045.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I was wondering. I do that occasionally :-)

if a use("v2") statement was at the top of the file. Could a lot of the
extra functions be the same name as the old ones, but with the different
args needed? Or is that too much work?

jerry

Jerry

--
Extra Ham Operator: K7AZJ
Registered Linux User: 275424
Raspberry Pi and Arduino developer

The most exciting phrase to hear in science - the one that heralds new
discoveries - is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...".- Isaac. Asimov

I
*f you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you
teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime. *-
Anonymous

If writing good code requires very little comments, then writing really
excellent code requires no comments at all!- Ken Thompson

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:02 AM, L Boyd lboyd@frontiernet.net wrote:

Doug (in other thread) wrote

1. I'd prefer that this geometric object has some built-in parameters, for
   example, like points:

   echo( mycube.points );

   So we can do these:

   1.1) translate( mycube.points[3]) yourcube;

   1.2) for( p= mycube.points ) translate( p ) sphere(...);

   1.3)  for( i= mycube.points[4:] )        // pick up the second half
   mycube.points[i]= somefunc(i); // re-assign points to
   change shape

   1.4) Assuming we have a Line() module, draw a line to connect two
   objects (at specified points):

        Line( mycube.points[0], yourcube.points[2] )
   

   1.5) distance( mycube.points[0], yourcube.points[2] )

2. I'd prefer all those actions, like translate, rotate, union, etc, can be*
   functions*, too:

   yourcube = rotate( mycube, 45 );
   hiscube = translate( yourcube.points[2] );
   

All the ideas have one thing in mind: *keeping track of coordinates for
further operations. *

$  Runsun Pan, PhD

$ -- OpenScad_DocTest ( Thingiverse ), faces , Offliner

$ -- hash parameter model: here , here

$ -- Linux Mint 17.1 Rebecca x64  + OpenSCAD 2015.03.15/2015.04.01.nightly

--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD2-design-docs-tp13019p13232.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

MichaelAtOz notes that a top level compound statement, {...}, is
interpreted by OpenSCAD as if the braces aren't there. Michael uses this to
group sets of related definitions within a large script, so that they can
be collapsed by the folding tree editor.

This is new information for me: I didn't know that people are using this
design pattern "in the wild", as Michael says.

Right now, the idiomatic way to write this code in OpenSCAD2 is:

include { // rECESS - the hollow holder where accessories are inserted
rTolerance=0.0; // adjust - originally the ID of the print was marginally
tight 2.05 2.75
rOD=40;
rID=35.5;
rThick=2-rTolerance;
rDeep=38;              // was 45
};

include { // rECESS Ridge - the raised ridges running down inside the holder
rRidgeHigh=0.75-rTolerance;
rRidgeWide=3;
rRidgeWide0=6.2;        // at mid-line parallel with slot at top
rRidgeNum=6;    // spacing, includes the one cut away by wide slot
};

Explanation: the OpenSCAD2 'include' operator takes an object expression as
an argument, and {...} is an object literal.

Also, in OpenSCAD2, objects are the replacement for groups in the CSG tree.
Each non-leaf node in the CSG tree is an object. As a result, "top level
compound statements" could appear naturally in code as a representation of
nested objects in a CSG tree. And that conflicts with the current use of
that syntax that Michael reports.

At present, this is an incompatibility between the existing language and
OpenSCAD2 that I wasn't aware of.

The new OpenSCAD implementation will use heuristics to detect OpenSCAD1
code and run in backward compatibility mode. It should be capable of
detecting Michael's code and evaluating it correctly without breaking.
There will also be an upgrade tool that converts existing code to use the
new syntax, and we could convert top level {...} statements to 'include
{...};' as part of the upgrade.

Michael, do you think this is an acceptable solution to the problem that
you uncovered?

Doug.

On 18 July 2015 at 01:10, MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com wrote: