Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations
Hi all, I have a puzzle that comes from my old puzzle: https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 7 11 1 90 -10 Imagine you want to break the loop at station 7, so that Therion shows 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 as a single line, then 2-10-9-8-7 as a branch off it. The break should be at the end of the branch: 10-9-8-7 / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 If you say "extend ignore 7" or "extend ignore 7 6" it will do this: 1-2-10-9-8-7-11 \ 3-4-5-6-7 Breaks at the right station, but on the wrong branch. You can do "extend ignore 8 7" to break at the wrong station on the right branch. If you use "extend ignore 7 11" it ignores you, and breaks at the natural point, leg 2-3. Is it actually possible to break at station 7 along the 2-10-9-8-7 branch? Cheers! Tarquin
OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s closing end. Tarquin’s example… 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 7 11 1 90 -10 # set gap at station 2 extend start 1 extend ignore 2 10 extend left 8 processing extended elevation ... START 1@extendedloop RIGHT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 3@extendedloop RIGHT 4@extendedloop RIGHT 5@extendedloop RIGHT 6@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop RIGHT 11@extendedloop BACK 7@extendedloop LEFT 8@extendedloop LEFT 9@extendedloop LEFT 10@extendedloop LEFT 2@extendedloop #gap here done Looking at therion.log transcript we can see that Therion traverses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11, then steps back to 7 before stepping to 8 9 10 2 and consequently leaving a gap between two 2s. If we had a statement to tell Therion to step back beyond 7 to 2, and THEN start generating we might get 2 10 9 8 7 and leaving a gap between two 7s. This would play havoc with my ‘extend ignore’ rules of thumb for predicting gap locations though. https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/extend#summary_of_all_extend_options_for_surv... Another solution might be for ‘extend right 2 10’ etc to be an implied ‘extend ignore’ for any other legs emanating from station 2. But that would break many existing extended elevations, so although more intuitive, lets cancel that idea! Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2020 09:12 To: Therion <therion@speleo.sk> Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones <tarquin.wilton-jones@ntlworld.com> Subject: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations Hi all, I have a puzzle that comes from my old puzzle: <https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend> https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 7 11 1 90 -10 Imagine you want to break the loop at station 7, so that Therion shows 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 as a single line, then 2-10-9-8-7 as a branch off it. The break should be at the end of the branch: 10-9-8-7 / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 If you say "extend ignore 7" or "extend ignore 7 6" it will do this: 1-2-10-9-8-7-11 \ 3-4-5-6-7 Breaks at the right station, but on the wrong branch. You can do "extend ignore 8 7" to break at the wrong station on the right branch. If you use "extend ignore 7 11" it ignores you, and breaks at the natural point, leg 2-3. Is it actually possible to break at station 7 along the 2-10-9-8-7 branch? Cheers! Tarquin _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list <mailto:Therion@speleo.sk> Therion@speleo.sk <https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a real-life project. Just start the sequence from the other end of the survey. Now I expect it is not possible to make a gap at station 2. #set gap at station 7 by starting from station 11 extend start 11 extend left 11 extend ignore 7 8 extend right 2 10 extend right 10 processing extended elevation ... START 11@extendedloop LEFT 7@extendedloop LEFT 6@extendedloop LEFT 5@extendedloop LEFT 4@extendedloop LEFT 3@extendedloop LEFT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 10@extendedloop RIGHT 9@extendedloop RIGHT 8@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop #gap here BACK 9@extendedloop BACK 10@extendedloop BACK 2@extendedloop LEFT 1@extendedloop done From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> On Behalf Of Bruce Mutton Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2020 20:59 To: 'List for Therion users' <therion@speleo.sk> Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s closing end. Tarquin’s example… 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 7 11 1 90 -10 # set gap at station 2 extend start 1 extend ignore 2 10 extend left 8 processing extended elevation ... START 1@extendedloop RIGHT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 3@extendedloop RIGHT 4@extendedloop RIGHT 5@extendedloop RIGHT 6@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop RIGHT 11@extendedloop BACK 7@extendedloop LEFT 8@extendedloop LEFT 9@extendedloop LEFT 10@extendedloop LEFT 2@extendedloop #gap here done Looking at therion.log transcript we can see that Therion traverses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11, then steps back to 7 before stepping to 8 9 10 2 and consequently leaving a gap between two 2s. If we had a statement to tell Therion to step back beyond 7 to 2, and THEN start generating we might get 2 10 9 8 7 and leaving a gap between two 7s. This would play havoc with my ‘extend ignore’ rules of thumb for predicting gap locations though. https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/extend#summary_of_all_extend_options_for_surv... Another solution might be for ‘extend right 2 10’ etc to be an implied ‘extend ignore’ for any other legs emanating from station 2. But that would break many existing extended elevations, so although more intuitive, lets cancel that idea! Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk <mailto:therion-bounces@speleo.sk> > On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2020 09:12 To: Therion <therion@speleo.sk <mailto:therion@speleo.sk> > Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones <tarquin.wilton-jones@ntlworld.com <mailto:tarquin.wilton-jones@ntlworld.com> > Subject: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations Hi all, I have a puzzle that comes from my old puzzle: <https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend> https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 7 11 1 90 -10 Imagine you want to break the loop at station 7, so that Therion shows 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 as a single line, then 2-10-9-8-7 as a branch off it. The break should be at the end of the branch: 10-9-8-7 / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 If you say "extend ignore 7" or "extend ignore 7 6" it will do this: 1-2-10-9-8-7-11 \ 3-4-5-6-7 Breaks at the right station, but on the wrong branch. You can do "extend ignore 8 7" to break at the wrong station on the right branch. If you use "extend ignore 7 11" it ignores you, and breaks at the natural point, leg 2-3. Is it actually possible to break at station 7 along the 2-10-9-8-7 branch? Cheers! Tarquin _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list <mailto:Therion@speleo.sk> Therion@speleo.sk <https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a real-life project.
Indeed. starting from the wrong end would just swap one problem for another ;) I added an "Important note" to the end of this: https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend Summary: As it currently stands, it does not seem to be possible to break an extended elevation at the "end" of a loop, along the shorter side of the loop (or whichever path Therion chooses as its primary path around the loop).
Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/ extend ignore 7 8 extend ignore 8 7 Something like: extend end 8 7 ... would be definitely better. Is it OK to implement it like that? S. On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 11:38, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion < therion@speleo.sk> wrote:
Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a real-life project.
Indeed. starting from the wrong end would just swap one problem for another ;)
I added an "Important note" to the end of this: https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend
Summary: As it currently stands, it does not seem to be possible to break an extended elevation at the "end" of a loop, along the shorter side of the loop (or whichever path Therion chooses as its primary path around the loop). _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
extend ignore 7 8 extend ignore 8 7
Wow! First thought is; that ... really shouldn't work, and it looks almost like a bug. Maybe there is logic though, if you look at those two statements in the opposite order (which also works, by the way). Therion proceeds along 1-2-10-9-8-7-11 "Therion, please ignore 8-7" Therion breaks the survey at 8. Therion now goes: 10-9-8 8 / / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 "Therion, please ignore 7-8" Therion breaks the survey at 7. It now has a floating 7-8 leg not connected to anything. So it connects it to the 10-9-8 branch, and ends up with the desired output. So maybe this is trustworthy rather than a bug? But it hurts my head to read it, and it smells like there will be some unpredictable hidden behaviours in there.
Something like:
extend end 8 7
... would be definitely better. Is it OK to implement it like that?
I like that it will never clash with existing stuff. I don't like that it introduces a new keyword instead of "ignore", that does the same thing as "ignore". I would personally prefer it as a modifier rather than a keyword, for consistency: extend ignore end 8 7 extend ignore 8 7 end But others may have stronger opinions.
Hmm, may need to think about this. We risk adding adhoc patches on adhoc patches and painting ourselves into a corner. Agree we should not add a new keyword just to emulate an obscure special case that is not well understood or well handled by 'ignore'. So a modifier of 'ignore' would be better, as Tarquin suggests.
extend ignore end 8 7 #or
extend ignore 8 7 end
Not sure about the word 'end', as it will not always be evident which end of a loop is the 'end’. Especially where there are loops within loops or beside loops. Maybe 'force'. Not sure about that either, but the user rule of thumb could be, if 'ignore' does not work, try 'ignore force'. extend ignore force 8 7 #or extend ignore 8 7 force Maybe we should take time to think about it for a while. We have a tentative solution right now, as Stacho has found, using the combination. extend start 1 extend ignore 7 8 extend ignore 8 7 ie, if extend ignore <leg> does not work, try following it with extend ignore <reversed leg> Using Tarquin's example this gives a log like... START 1@extendedloop RIGHT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 10@extendedloop RIGHT 9@extendedloop RIGHT 8@extendedloop #ie random branch taken as far as 8 BACK 9@extendedloop BACK 10@extendedloop BACK 2@extendedloop #step back to 2 RIGHT 3@extendedloop RIGHT 4@extendedloop RIGHT 5@extendedloop RIGHT 6@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop RIGHT 11@extendedloop #at end branch 11… BACK 7@extendedloop BACK 6@extendedloop BACK 5@extendedloop BACK 4@extendedloop BACK 3@extendedloop BACK 2@extendedloop BACK 1@extendedloop #step all the way back to 1 START 8@extendedloop #auto restart at 8 RIGHT 7@extendedloop #finish the last leg done And vise versa extend start 1 extend ignore 8 7 extend ignore 7 8 START 1@extendedloop RIGHT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 10@extendedloop RIGHT 9@extendedloop RIGHT 8@extendedloop #ie random branch taken as far as 8 BACK 9@extendedloop BACK 10@extendedloop BACK 2@extendedloop #ie random branch taken as far as 8 RIGHT 3@extendedloop RIGHT 4@extendedloop RIGHT 5@extendedloop RIGHT 6@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop RIGHT 11@extendedloop #at end branch 11… BACK 7@extendedloop BACK 6@extendedloop BACK 5@extendedloop BACK 4@extendedloop BACK 3@extendedloop BACK 2@extendedloop BACK 1@extendedloop #step all the way back to 1 START 8@extendedloop#auto restart at 8 RIGHT 7@extendedloop #finish the last leg done It disturbs me that the sequence is exactly the same. I agree with Tarquin, “it smells like there will be some unpredictable hidden behaviours in there”. A question Stacho. Are extend statements processed in sequence they are written, or are they all read by Therion before Therion chooses best order to process them (as it does with survey data)? I’m suspecting the latter. Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion Sent: Wednesday, 8 July 2020 02:42 To: therion@speleo.sk Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones <tarquin.wilton-jones@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations
Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
extend ignore 7 8
extend ignore 8 7
Wow! First thought is; that ... really shouldn't work, and it looks almost like a bug. Maybe there is logic though, if you look at those two statements in the opposite order (which also works, by the way). Therion proceeds along 1-2-10-9-8-7-11 "Therion, please ignore 8-7" Therion breaks the survey at 8. Therion now goes: 10-9-8 8 / / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 "Therion, please ignore 7-8" Therion breaks the survey at 7. It now has a floating 7-8 leg not connected to anything. So it connects it to the 10-9-8 branch, and ends up with the desired output. So maybe this is trustworthy rather than a bug? But it hurts my head to read it, and it smells like there will be some unpredictable hidden behaviours in there.
Something like:
extend end 8 7
... would be definitely better. Is it OK to implement it like that?
I like that it will never clash with existing stuff. I don't like that it introduces a new keyword instead of "ignore", that does the same thing as "ignore". I would personally prefer it as a modifier rather than a keyword, for consistency: extend ignore end 8 7 extend ignore 8 7 end But others may have stronger opinions. _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list <mailto:Therion@speleo.sk> Therion@speleo.sk <https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Not sure about the word 'end', as it will not always be evident which end of a loop is the 'end’.
The modifier name I suggested was "break at the *end* of the leg, not the start of it like you normally would". Sortof like "to" rather than "from", except that Therion picks its own start station and end station of a leg when traversing an extended elevation. Not precious about it, just hoping some word can put the idea into the head of a user, so that it takes less effort to learn. "first" (default) and "second" also make sense from that perspective. "former" and "latter" too.
It disturbs me that the sequence is exactly the same.
o_O That was unexpected. I echo your question. I have always thought of them as being sequential, but perhaps that's just because that is how you normally create them, and how the idea has therefore stuck in my head.
We have a tentative solution right now
If we could guarantee that this is intended behaviour and will always work, then it might be acceptable to just leave it without a better notation. But even if it is by design, it is quite hard to make sense out of it. Even harder to teach someone else how to understand and apply this concept when they need it. Tarquin
The modifier name I suggested was "break at the *end* of the leg, not the start of it like you normally would". Sortof like "to" rather than "from", except that Therion picks its own start station and end station of a >leg when traversing an extended elevation.
OK, I misunderstood...
extend ignore end 8 7 #or extend ignore 8 7 end "first" (default) and "second" also make sense from that perspective. "former" and "latter" too. extend ignore force 8 7 #or extend ignore 8 7 force
How about... extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ] ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at each end of a survey leg? Bruce
How about... extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ] ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at each end of a survey leg?
It's all good by me. The only reason I didn't suggest that keyword is that Therion is stepping through my loop backwards. So a user might assume that the "to" station is the "to" station from their data, when actually it is the "to" station from the "extend ignore" pair. But as long as people think it is intuitive enough, carry on :)
Hi, after returning from the caving trip, I would like to finish this topic. For me, adding another parameter to extend is a little bit problematic, I would prefer some new keyword. What do you think about: extend stop 8 7 S. On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 11:01, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion < therion@speleo.sk> wrote:
How about... extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ] ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at each end of a survey leg?
It's all good by me.
The only reason I didn't suggest that keyword is that Therion is stepping through my loop backwards. So a user might assume that the "to" station is the "to" station from their data, when actually it is the "to" station from the "extend ignore" pair.
But as long as people think it is intuitive enough, carry on :) _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Stacho Stop seems like a keyword that probably evokes the right expectations from a user. Although, what are you thinking that a description of what it does would look like? extend stop 8 7 Maybe, “when extending along leg 8 7, stop at 7, backup and start extending at the next part of the centreline that needs to be extended”. Or would it exactly mimic the extend ignore 8 7 extend ignore 7 8 behaviour shown in the log in my 8 July email, which stops generating at station 8, then backs up, and eventually assigns itself a second start station to patch up an orphaned leg? What would be the expected behaviour of extend 8 7 if the centreline were to be extending from the right, starting at 11? And as a general question… Are extend statements processed in the sequence they are written, or are they all read by Therion before Therion chooses the best order to process them (as it does with survey data)? Bruce From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> On Behalf Of Stacho Mudrak Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2020 17:43 To: List for Therion users <therion@speleo.sk> Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations Hi, after returning from the caving trip, I would like to finish this topic. For me, adding another parameter to extend is a little bit problematic, I would prefer some new keyword. What do you think about: extend stop 8 7 S. On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 11:01, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <therion@speleo.sk <mailto:therion@speleo.sk> > wrote:
How about... extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ] ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at each end of a survey leg?
It's all good by me. The only reason I didn't suggest that keyword is that Therion is stepping through my loop backwards. So a user might assume that the "to" station is the "to" station from their data, when actually it is the "to" station from the "extend ignore" pair. But as long as people think it is intuitive enough, carry on :) _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk <mailto:Therion@speleo.sk> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Hi Bruce, extend stop 8 7 would mean, that if the algorithm reaches station 7 from station 8, it stops extending, turns back, and continues from some previous stations. If the algorithm will go the opposite way (11->7->8), extend stop 8 7 will be ignored. And to the general question: the b) is correct. Therion reads all extend statements, assign these options to oriented legs and stations, and then processes them. S. On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 09:10, Bruce Mutton via Therion <therion@speleo.sk> wrote:
Stacho
Stop seems like a keyword that probably evokes the right expectations from a user.
Although, what are you thinking that a description of what it does would look like?
extend stop 8 7
Maybe, “when extending along leg 8 7, stop at 7, backup and start extending at the next part of the centreline that needs to be extended”.
Or would it exactly mimic the extend ignore 8 7 extend ignore 7 8 behaviour shown in the log in my 8 July email, which stops generating at station 8, then backs up, and eventually assigns itself a second start station to patch up an orphaned leg?
What would be the expected behaviour of extend 8 7 if the centreline were to be extending from the right, starting at 11?
And as a general question…
Are extend statements processed in the sequence they are written, or are they all read by Therion before Therion chooses the best order to process them (as it does with survey data)?
Bruce
*From:* Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> *On Behalf Of *Stacho Mudrak *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 July 2020 17:43 *To:* List for Therion users <therion@speleo.sk> *Subject:* Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations
Hi, after returning from the caving trip, I would like to finish this topic.
For me, adding another parameter to extend is a little bit problematic, I would prefer some new keyword.
What do you think about:
extend stop 8 7
S.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 11:01, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion < therion@speleo.sk> wrote:
How about... extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ] ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at each end of a survey leg?
It's all good by me.
The only reason I didn't suggest that keyword is that Therion is stepping through my loop backwards. So a user might assume that the "to" station is the "to" station from their data, when actually it is the "to" station from the "extend ignore" pair.
But as long as people think it is intuitive enough, carry on :) _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Stacho Could there be an ‘extend stop 7’, whereby the algorithm stops extending regardless of the direction and branch from which station 7 is traversed? In the diagram below it seems like station 7 could conceptually be encountered from station 6, 8 or 11. Would the ‘stop’ be invoked every time 7 is encountered, or just the first time? Seems like ‘extend stop station’ could be problematic or unpredictable, especially in live projects where new surveys are regularly added. I like the idea of ‘extend stop leg’, but probably not ‘extend stop station’. Bruce From: Therion <therion-bounces@speleo.sk> On Behalf Of Stacho Mudrak Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2020 20:26 To: List for Therion users <therion@speleo.sk> Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations Hi Bruce, extend stop 8 7 would mean, that if the algorithm reaches station 7 from station 8, it stops extending, turns back, and continues from some previous stations. If the algorithm will go the opposite way (11->7->8), extend stop 8 7 will be ignored. And to the general question: the b) is correct. Therion reads all extend statements, assign these options to oriented legs and stations, and then processes them. S.
I wondered if adding extend statements in-line with data would offer a solution, or at least some insight. If so I have not found it yet. Interested to see if anyone else can: 1. Make the loop generate anticlockwise and produce a gap at station 2, with the second instance of 2 on the right of the first instance. 2. Produce a gap at station 7. Here is my first attempt. extend start extend right 1 2 1 0 -10 2 3 1 0 -10 3 4 1 45 -10 4 5 1 45 -10 5 6 1 45 -10 6 7 1 90 -10 extend left 7 8 1.71 225 60 8 9 1 225 10 9 10 1 225 10 # extend ignore 10 2 1.8 225 -32.2 extend right 7 11 1 90 -10 ie this traverses 1 2 10 9 8 7 then backwards through 6 5 4 3 2, then 7 to 11 Not at all the sequence the data is presented in the data table above The ignore statement before leg 2 10 is ‘ignored’ if it is uncommented. START 1@extendedloop RIGHT 2@extendedloop RIGHT 10@extendedloop RIGHT 9@extendedloop RIGHT 8@extendedloop RIGHT 7@extendedloop LEFT 6@extendedloop LEFT 5@extendedloop LEFT 4@extendedloop LEFT 3@extendedloop LEFT 2@extendedloop #now back to 7 BACK 4@extendedloop BACK 5@extendedloop BACK 6@extendedloop BACK 7@extendedloop RIGHT 11@extendedloop # and 7 to 11 Done Bruce
OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s closing end.
OK, so if even the extended elevation master can't do it, I don't have to feel like I missed something obvious... My proposed solution would be for "extend ignore 7 8" to tell Therion "I want you to break at station 7, for the leg that connects to station 8". As it stands now, Therion will ignore that statement, since it is extending that leg in the 8->7 direction. So it will not break any existing setups if it starts to respect it, because that backwards statement should not be in any working setups. Alternatively, some new syntax, like: extend ignore 8 7 end which says "break this leg, but at its end rather than its start".
Another solution might be for ‘extend right 2 10’ etc to be an implied ‘extend ignore’ for any other legs emanating from station 2. But that would break many existing extended elevations, so although more intuitive, lets cancel that idea!
Indeed. I wouldn't want a solution that changes existing behaviour. Breaking all of your surveys is not a goal.
participants (3)
-
Bruce Mutton -
Stacho Mudrak -
Tarquin Wilton-Jones