Is Mint more widely adopted for Master-based LCNC platform development? Currently on Debian Wheezy, the problem of screen sizing for Gmoccapy is (according to 'rodw') not an issue on the Mint platform.
Considering my post of May 26, it's a consideration to dabble in experimental 'taskmodule.cc' code. With experience in mini-/microcomputer design (can't be the sole survivor of the 'good old days' of HP 2100, PDP, ... minicomputer ecosystems, ECL, STTL pre-VHDL/FPGA, and gate arrays) and embedded C++, retirement presents the pressure - or rather opportunity - to come to grips with Linux(CNC)!
As noted (in Rod's post of April 5), overlaying a custom module on checked out Master source should not be problematic ... but reference to issues around 'boost-python' (coded within 'taskmodule.cc') suggest there may be pitfalls.
Among other interests, extension of the 'task_mode' state machine design might facilitate robust manual tool change allowing jogging and touch-off (my post of May 26, and others).
Is this seen as being of only marginal interest to the community? My understanding of the entire LCNC software architecture is shallow at this time, oblivious to potential side-effects such an enhancement might cause. The modularity of LCNC code, and what appears (prior to scrutiny) to be scope limitation of coding to 'taskmodule.cc', suggest that this specific behavioural enhancement may be realised by making changes within that module only. Appreciating there may be sensitivity to dabbling with a module at the heart of LCNC implementation (not presently proposing another github branch), it's clear that intensive study is needed to verify this. The impact on libraries, Python API, halui and GUIs (etc) to exploit such an enhancement are not overlooked.
Comment on 'depth of the pit', and topic interest / similar initiative will be appreciated.
I suggest posting your question in general questions area... where experts there can help you directly with you questions.
