doug.moen wrote

Include doesn't work for the same reason as use. It needs to be placed in
part1.scad instead of part_test.scad.

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

nophead wrote

Could you explain how to pass part2 to part1 as a child? I've already tried
to use children() to do what I want to do, and it didn't work, as I
described in this post:
children() doesn't work with objects generated in a for loop
http://forum.openscad.org/How-to-apply-changes-to-all-shapes-generated-in-a-for-loop-td23685.html

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

I tested the following and it works for me.

part1.scad___________

module part1() {
echo("part1");
part2();
}

part2.scad___________

module part2() {
echo("part2");
}

part_test.scad_________

include <part1.scad>
include <part2.scad>

part1();

On 28 March 2018 at 12:09, jamcultur nyponen@gmail.com wrote:

Well yes and no. A for loop produces a union of all its iterations, so only
produces one child. I think modules do the same. Nothing can return
multiple children, you can only pass them explicitly as a list.

But for this case it would work to decouple part1 and part 2.

part1.scad___________

module part1() {
echo("part1");
children();
}

part2.scad___________

module part2() {
echo("part2");
}

part_test.scad_________

use <part1.scad>
use <part2.scad>

part1() part2();

On 28 March 2018 at 17:26, doug moen doug@moens.org wrote:

doug.moen wrote

It didn't work when I first tested it because I had
use <part1.scad>
include <part2.scad>

I did that because I had some code in part1.scad that I didn't want to be
executed when the file was included. When I took that code out and included
both files, it worked. I think this might be the best solution for me and I
will continue testing it. Thank you!

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

nophead wrote

I haven't tested this yet to see if it will work with my code that generates
objects in a loop, but I will. Thanks.

--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

I don't think you can generate objects in a loop. It is always a single
object because the results are implicitly unioned. The only way I know to
get multiple children is to list them explicitly. E.g.

part1() {
part2();
cube();
sphere();
}

On 30 March 2018 at 16:08, jamcultur nyponen@gmail.com wrote:

On 3/30/2018 10:19 AM, nop head wrote:

[ Just thinking out loud.  This seems like an interesting idea; I'm not
pushing hard for it. ]

I wonder how reasonable it would be to have a construct that would take
a CSG tree and crack it apart into individual subtrees.

That is, "explode() union() { x; y; }" would be equivalent to "x; y;". 
(For operations other than "union" maybe it would be an error, or maybe
the operation would be discarded.)

like it might be useful, e.g. allowing a wrapper module to pass its
children to an inner module as individual objects:

module inner() {
	// do something with children
	echo($children);
}

module outer() {
	// do stuff, then invoke inner on the children
	inner() explode() children();
}

outer() {
	sphere();
	cube();
}

would echo 2, not 1.

looks like a module but yields more than one object.  It seems like some
kind of different syntax would be desirable.

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:19:27PM +0100, nop head wrote:

In that case, that's a hint we should think about possibly chaiging
things in the language.

The C language was designed so that the basic functions do things that
are useful, but also that they don't do too much. For example, printf
does not automatically add a newline. writing a function to add that
is easy, building something that removes the newline is not.

So.... a list of objects is easily unioned by adding union in
front, while a unioned list is not easily un-unioned.

for (i=[0:10:50])
translate ([i,i,0]) cube (15);

should give me the list of 6 cubes,  while
union () {
for (i=[0:10:50])
translate ([i,i,0]) cube (15);
}

gives the union of those objects.

Roger.

--
** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
**    Delftechpark 26 2628 XH  Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233    **
-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --
The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike
Phil, this plan just might work.