bending question

[480sparky]

Holy run on sentence Batman.

Do you write code by any chance?


The code writers ARE lacking because they leave stuff like this open to interpetation.

If you want to be understood, say what you mean using as few words as possible.

It's people like US that write the Code. So maybe someone will submit a proposal to clarify this situation. That's about the only way it's going to get changed.

 

[paul]

We have debated this before, but I'm sticking to my guns....



A "quarter bend" is olde skool for a 90.... Most benders are not made to bend more than 90 in a single shot anway. So depending on how you read this "equivalent of four quarter bends" - more than 90 is - or isn't an option - I opt for isn't. But that's not to say you can't have a 90, and a 30 right next to it. Seeming to be a 120 bend...

As 90, 30, 30, 30, 90, 90 is equivilent to 4 quarter bends, but 180, 90, 90 is not IMO. 180 does not equal 90, but 15, 15, 30, 30 do.... And 15, 15, 30, 30, 90, 90, 60, 30 is "equivilent to four quarter bends", ect. in this thinking.

The language, "equivalent of four quarter bends" - ('equal to the quanity of 4 90's') i.e. 360 degrees limited to 4 each, of the 90 max. each, or "equivilent" of the 90 max X 4 - has been in the code since inception as far as I know.

"(360 degrees total)" was added about a decade or so ago supposedly as clarification of something. But I feel it has only muddied the waters.

If you're going to stick by your guns and not go over 90? because of that statement, then you should also not surpass 4 bends in a run. So your 90?, 30?, 30?, 30?, 90?, 90? should stop after the 3rd 30?. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.