Using osnaps inside GRREAD loop ?
Jesse Danes
I am trying to use grread loops to create custom LINE, PLINE and INSERT
commands with some additional features. The only drawback I cannot seem
to find a solution for is that there doesn't seem to be any way to
use osnaps while in the grread loop. Did I miss something here or is
this just not possible ?
Thanks
Jesse
Tony Tanzillo
The user doesn't have any use of the keyboard for
anything (such as coordinate entry format options,
direct distance entry, immediate osnap, point
filters, etc.), that is, other than what's manually
implemented (i've seen attempts at it, and never
did one come close to complete emulation).
There is no support for polar snap/tracking, object
tracking, auto-tracking, osnap markers, and so on.
There is no support for menus (including the mouse
buttons) at all.
Given that its either impracticle or impossible to
support the aformentioned features, GRREAD is not
what I consider an acceptable way to emulate AutoCAD's
standard coordinate entry mechanism, if that's what
the intention is.
The only place where it is useful is in things like
SKETCH, and REVCLOUD (e.g, where 'precision' is not
a primary concern).
AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2004/2005
http://www.acadxtabs.com
"Jesse Danes" <jdan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:409d25d8$1_1@newsprd01...
Jesse Danes
> support the aformentioned features, GRREAD is not
> what I consider an acceptable way to emulate AutoCAD's
> standard coordinate entry mechanism, if that's what
> the intention is.
This is my observation as well, however there are some other instances
where its been working very well. Many of the aforementioned problems
were circumvented by adding conditional statements for particular key
presses then either reacting directly or dropping into a subprompt for
user input, for example: grread command prompt [Regen/Axis/Zoom/Point]
pressing A (Axis) would alternate the forced origin axis of the line in
progress between X and Y, pressing Z (Zoom) would drop into a command
loop (vl-cmdf "_.rtpan"). Pressing P (Point) would drop into a
(getpoint) loop for user input, and so forth. It doesn't take long to
realize one has opened up a real can of worms in taking this approach
because now everything normally available at the AutoCAD command prompt
must be emulated, and many of the standard features are not available.
Its a real tradeoff in deciding if its worth the effort since creating a
grread loops does offer some attractive possibilities such as using the
(nentselp) function with a point argument taken from the mouse position
tracking argument of (grread) to detect drawing objects on mouse-over
and, for example, (entget ename '("APPNAME")) extracting application
data and displaying it to the AutoCAD command prompt or bubble text
using (grvecs). Again on the downside, this effectively creates another
entry system alltogether which is dissimilar from AutoCAD's standard
entry system, and takes the user a little getting used to. Fortunately
those testing the programs haven't had any problems or suggested its all
that awkward to use, infact many have liked the extended functionality.
But its certainly come with a heavy development cost. Given the above
functionality, I've considered the idea of emulating object snaps as
well, but I had really hoped to avoid having to.
The only other possibility I can think of for creating an entry system
which more closely matches AutoCAD's native entry system is by using
AutoCAD's native commands directly (i.e. LINE) and triggering a series
of reactors (e.g. :vlr-commandBegin and :vlr-commandEnded) which in turn
perform any interrim operations needed to the newly created objects and
re-initiate another call to the command which triggered the reactor.
But here again this also presents its own world of management problems.
Would you have any other suggestions ?
Regards,
Jesse Danes
John Uhden
might otherwise be available. You have to weigh the benefits vs. the deficits
and come up with what works best (as close as you can get). If you checkout my
LABEL_IT routine, there is some emulation that Autodesk doesn't naturally
provide, namely showing both endpoints of a segment. Yes, it uses (grread) and
yes, it was a pain in the butt.
--
John Uhden, Cadlantic
<the e-mail address is bogus>
http://www.cadlantic.com
Sea Girt, NJ
"Jesse Danes" <jdan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:409d25d8$1_1@newsprd01...
Tony Tanzillo
> This is my observation as well, however there are some
> other instances where its been working very well.
You're probably not going to like this, but I'm going to
say it anyway....
While it may be your opinion that resorting to kludges
only to make it possible to support other kludges, like
displaying entity data in a bubble using (grvecs), and
regard all of it as acceptable, my opinion is that opinions
about how to correctly solve problems seem to be designed
to serve the interests of the problem solver, rather than
the interests of those who need and use the solution.
That is mainly because in almost every case, those opinions
serve the need to avoid having to acknowledge that while
there is a better solution to a given problem, the one who
is responsible for solving the problem one may not have the
prerequisite skills and experience with the tools needed to
realize that superior solution.
When there is problem that must be solved, which would require
me to resort to totally unreasonable kludges, in preference to a
superior solution which requires the use of tools that may
not be within my own skills set, I have no choice but to do what
I regard as the professionally and socially responsible thing,
which is to swallow my pride and muster the courage to tell
those who are signing the checks, that they need to seek out the
services of others who are qualified to use the tools needed to
solve the problem, THE RIGHT WAY.
If I were to propose and attempt to defend outrageous kludges
as the preferred means of providing a relatively inferior solution
to a problem, and did so only to protect myself; to serve my own
job security interests; or avoid having to acknowledge that I do
not have the required skills and experience using the right tool
for the job, I would call that fraudulent; a betrayal of those who
depend on me and sign my paycheck; and highly detrimental to those
whom I work with and/or serve.
That is why I have long since concluded that the 'clever' thing
to do, was to emerge from a virtual state of denial about my own
lack of skills; bite the bullet, and learn to use the right tools
needed to do job the way it should be done, rather than subscribe
to some rediculously egotistical idea that the need to credit myself
with the solutions, is far more imporant than the soundness and
quality of those solutions.
That's about all I have to say about this.
michael puckett
have participated in and offered my opinion, whatever that
may or may not be worth, I have to comment here, if for
nothing else than to satisfy my own sense of fairness.
Having said that, I must say that I agree with the core
principles of your post, despite the fact that portions of
this may in fact apply to myself.
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@bogus.com> wrote in message news:409faf2c_3@newsprd01...
"Jesse Danes" <jdan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> This is my observation as well, however there are some
> other instances where its been working very well.
You're probably not going to like this, but I'm going to
say it anyway....
While it may be your opinion that resorting to kludges
only to make it possible to support other kludges, like
displaying entity data in a bubble using (grvecs), and
regard all of it as acceptable, my opinion is that opinions
about how to correctly solve problems seem to be designed
to serve the interests of the problem solver, rather than
the interests of those who need and use the solution.
<snip>
Tony Tanzillo
> principles of your post, despite the fact that portions of
> this may in fact apply to myself.
The truth of the matter is that they apply to all of us,
myself included. It's not a question of black or white,
because we all have conflicting interests. it's more a
matter of how we manage those confecting interests, and
the extents we will go, to cater to our own interests,
and risk the possibility of becoming practitioners of false
or semi-legitimate ideas.
I realized long back that it became much harder for me to
justify 'kludgy' solutions like those discussed in this and
other threads, that were limited to only those tools I was
most familiar with. That's why I concluded that it was time
show some intestinal fortitude, and emerge from the security
of that cozy little sandbox.
I like having the run of the entire beach much better than
having to continuously put forth semi-legitimate arguments
in defense of the idea that my customers should have to bear
the consequences of my choosing to remain in the confines of
that same stupid little sandbox.
I also recognize that there are some old dogs that seem to
have a much harder time learning new tricks. I have little
compassion for them.
It's survival of the fittest. Either adapt to change, or
risk becoming a footnote in your own book.
Tony Tanzillo
See what happens when I use a spell checker?
michael puckett
making reference to - is it possible said parties are in
fact learning new technologies but are not yet in a state
such that those technologies can be implemented with full
confidence; in the interim the "old kludges", while admittedly
inferior, still get the job done?
I think the concept you've illuminated the most in these
forums is the need to consider every possible facet of an
issue.
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@bogus.com> wrote in message news:409fe79a$1_2@newsprd01...
Doug Broad
BTW: Are you advocating Objectarx or something else?
Where's the beach? I'm ready for some surf. ;-)
Regards,
Doug
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@bogus.com> wrote in message news:409fe79a$1_2@newsprd01...
Herman Mayfarth
<snicker>
Hey, Michael,
JMO, but it appears to me that Tony is trying to give a gentle shove to
the more accomplished programmers here (among whose number I count you,
but certainly not myself) that they should all do themselves a favor,
BTB (bite the bullet) & learn to play with the big boyz.:)
<lurk>
Jesse Danes
Its good to actually have someone offering usefull advice amidst all the
clutter in this newsgroup.
Regards,
Jesse Danes
Jesse Danes
more than a longwinded superiority trip and veiled slander. In fact
I've never seen a reply from you that had anything usefull or
intelligent to say except to slander, rant, cut down or present yourself
as the ultimate authority on all things AutoCAD. I ask only one more
thing of you, and that is that you restrain yourself from replying to
another one of my posts in this lifetime.
Regards,
Jesse Danes
michael puckett
I don't get the <snicker> part, then again it's 5:25am here
and I just got up.
I understood Tony's post to mean that serious development
frequently requires the use of languages or tools the
developer does not have expertise with. If said developer
wants to survive one has to "bite the bullet" as it were and
acquire those skills. In this case it could be C++, in
another it may be C#; yet in another it may be how to use
functionality in the Windows API, using any language that
supports that. In the absence of those skills, resorting to
kludgy work arounds, espousing those techniques as somehow
secret and superior, and subsequently being trapped by the
protectionist philosophy one may exhibit as a result of
possessing a limited skill set is what I believe he's taking
exception to and addressing.
But I'm sorry I don't know what "play with the big boys"
means.
Thanks,
Michael.
Medic: Can we get some coffee over here?
"Herman Mayfarth" <NoS...@me.net> wrote in message news:VA.000000e...@me.net...
michael puckett
"michael puckett" <no...@m.eh> wrote in message news:40a0c0fa$1_3@newsprd01...
> If you remove your ego out of these discussions, and trust me, that
> is not easy, an ongoing challenge, and a indeed lesson in itself, you
> can find pearls in his discussions.
Jesse Danes
for the handfull they have been, perdominently follow this line of
abnoxious behaviour. For the 1-5% of usefull information that could be
extracted from the ramaining 95-99% attitude problem, it simply isn't
worth anyone's time, mine yours or even his. And yet he has made
sweeping and decisive conclusions about circumstances and facts he
really knows nothing about. What he thinks of as 'kludges' I would be
more inclined to suggest are lack of imagination and innovation on his
part. As nice as it might be to have the ease and luxury of using the
'right' tools, realistically we just don't have the time schedule
available to retrain and rewrite 20,000 lines of code.
Simply put his attitude is just uncalled for and not needed. I learned
a long time ago that its not how much you know that matters, because
comparatively any one of us knows very little at all. But what's
important is how its used and presented to others that makes all the
difference. Making the complex simple, or presenting broad concepts
with brief and immediate clarity. And above all, doing it with a well
rounded and positive attitude; these are the hallmarks of wisdom and
genius. And in all these areas he receives a very generous F. Although
someone can be an expert on trees, they can still miss the forrest.
Well that said I will end this post on a note of philosophical humor ...
"If tony is speaking in a forrest and there's no one there to hear him,
is he still abnoxious ?"
Regards,
Jesse Danes
michael puckett wrote:
> Sometimes condescending, sometimes acerbic, sometimes, well enough
> of the compliments, but "nothing useful or intelligent to say"?
> Sorry, I have to disagree.
>
> Before you start thinking I'm going for brownie points I'm not, and
> you'll need to examine my posting history to determine that for
> yourself. Tony and I have had famous fights, sadly, right here in
> front of everyone but I've learned to just let them go. Fight again?
> Ackkk, I don't want to, but alas, we may. But I digress.
>
> If you remove your ego out of these discussions, and trust me, that
> is not easy, an ongoing challenge, and a indeed lesson in itself, you
> can find pearls in his discussions.
>
> "Jesse Danes" <jdan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:40a0b948$1_1@newsprd01...
Jesse Danes
remark about 'speaking in a forrest' was probably uncalled for as well.
So for that i offer my apologies to the group.
Regards,
Jesse Danes
Anne Brown
personal references to anyone in this discussion, all messages
were left. Equal give and take on both sides, everyone picked on
equally. And now back to code please?
--
Anne Brown
Discussion Groups Administrator
Autodesk, Inc.
Anne Brown
You are new here. Most folk posting here have been doing so from
back when the Autodesk discussion groups were on Compuserve at
300 baud rate and $12 an hour. Please let the occasional personal
remarks slide by and concentrate on the code give/take. It's not
worth replying.
--
Anne Brown
Discussion Groups Administrator
Autodesk, Inc.
Tony Tanzillo
While there's plenty of relatively simple customization
that can be handled entirely in LISP, that's not what
I take exception to. If LISP can do the job without the
need for major comprimises, then by all means, use LISP.
What ruffles my feathers is the suggestion that blowing
away basic AutoCAD functionality like OSNAPS and so
forth, mainly for the purpose of supporting other kludges
(e.g., a kludge-o-rama) is somehow justifiable.
A willingness to take LISP to extremes like displaying
tooltips or bitmap cursor glyphs using grvecs, etc., and
to comprimise basic AutoCAD functionality to realize all
of the kludges, should be viewed as precisely what it is,
a symptom of another kind of problem.
AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2004/2005
http://www.acadxtabs.com
"Doug Broad" <dbr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:40a0507f$1_1@newsprd01...
Tony Tanzillo
might actually do some good at the end of the day.
While I understand that some may perceive them as
condescending; belittling; or offensive, and I fully
apologize for that, that really wasn't the intent.
Bees don't get their point across with honey.
AcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2004/2005
http://www.acadxtabs.com
"michael puckett" <no...@m.eh> wrote in message news:40a0c0fa$1_3@newsprd01...
Paul_M
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@bogus.com> schreef in bericht
news:40a138bb$1_2@newsprd01...
Luis Esquivel
de su comentario y el cual es para que nosotros o los demas exploremos
nuevos metodos y posibilidades y no nos quedemos estancados en una sola.
De cualquier forma, yo en lo particular le agradezco sus comentarios.
Herman Mayfarth
FWIW,
I thought your comments were polite, succinct, informative, and to the
point, and Mr. Danes appears to me to be taking offense unnecessarily.
Other than that, second Michael & Luis' comments.
Although we have locked horns once or twice in the past (and may well
in the future, who knows) I salute your superior knowledge &
willingness to share with others.
> Bees don't get their point across with honey.
>
"No pain, no gain."
Doug Broad
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@bogus.com> wrote in message news:40a138bb$1_2@newsprd01...
Jesse Danes
Anne
Good point and well taken. You are correct, its getting entirely away
from the whole purpose of a message thread, which is the productive
exchange of ideas.
Actually I'm not new here. I've spent some time here years ago and had
since left because of the problems we had here. I've been doing AutoCAD
since release 2.18 and as a job related function for about 14 years now
working for several small fabrication shops and some large engineering
firms such as Honeywell and Amec Engineering as a CAE/CAD Support Admin.
Recently however I've partnered with a small engineering company to
handle their VL programming for legacy code and new software. Some of
the requests are pretty intense at times and time is often short. So I
find myself running into a question now and again which there is not the
luxery of time to fully investigate single handedly. Thus, here I am
once gain. There are alot of folks here with some good ideas and
solutions. Although one of us could not possibly know everything about
AutoCAD or CAD there is to know I think collectively the background and
experience here makes for a very formidable knowledge base.
Regards,
Jesse Danes
Anne Brown
Babel Fish Translation
In English:
Translating its words to the Spanish, the intention of its
commentary is understood completely and which is so that we or
demas we explore new metodos and possibilities and we do not
remain suspended in a single one. Anyway, I in the individual
thank for his commentaries to him.
--
Anne Brown
Discussion Groups Administrator
Autodesk, Inc.
John Uhden
--
John Uhden, Cadlantic
<the e-mail address is bogus>
http://www.cadlantic.com
Sea Girt, NJ
"Anne Brown" <discussio...@autodesk.com> wrote in message
news:40A18682...@autodesk.com...
Luis Esquivel
By translating your words to Spanish, the intention of your words it is well
understood and it is for us to explore new methods and possibilities and not
being left stuck in only one way.
Anyway to me in particular I appreciate your comments.