I'd like to know what it is before I jump down that rabbit hole.

David

On 12/10/20 8:18 PM, crunchysteve wrote:

Nobody posted an example of what I thought was desired:

include<BOSL2/std.scad>
include<BOSL2/skin.scad>

$fn=16;
ofs = 1;
r=4;
number=5;
radius=.4;    // If this is much bigger you need path_sweep2d

path = [for(i=[0:2:359]) (r+ofssin(numberi))*[cos(i),sin(i)]];
path_sweep(circle(r=radius), path, closed=true);
// path_sweep2d(circle(r=radius), path, closed=true);

Note that if you fiddle with the parameters you can get self-intersections
to occur at the peaks of the sin wave (creases in the model) and that makes
the model invalid.  (Curiously the RC version doesn't flag this as invalid,
even though the render is wrong!)  You can  handle the self-intersections
with path_sweep2d, but it's much slower, at least to preview, than the
regular path_sweep.

BOSL2 is the Belfry OpenSCAD Library:

https://github.com/revarbat/BOSL2/wiki

I believe the dotSCAD library also includes a path_sweep module (not sure
what it's called).  And of course list-comprehension-demos has the original
sweep().

skypuppy wrote

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

I think this version might be broken by the 2019.05 release.  It might
require a little hunting around on github for a working version, actually.

MichaelAtOz wrote

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

I chose to disregard the answer.

Is OpenSCAD the best language to extend OpenSCAD? How much do we multiply failings? I don't have confidence in that idea given OpenSCAD's intrinsic  structural, functionsl and variable access limitations. Yes, some exotic things can be done(most impressive libraries), but are they elegant , and an extension most users can appreciate and further build on?

I think the argument for OpenSCAD in a Python environment addresses the fundimental dilemma of not just improving the functions that the OpenSCAD paradigm defines, but the language structures that support it.
Clinging to the OpenSCAD language to support itself(no limitation to the truly inspired) is fine for some, but a huge wall to scale for so many other potential contributors.
Cheers, RobW

On 11 December 2020 1:18:28 pm AEDT, crunchysteve bandmassa@gmail.com wrote:

RobWLakes wrote

Thanks Rob. This is not just aimed at you.

EVERYONE, yes there are some cultural discussion in other threads, but,
PLEASE REPLY TO THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION.

This is: bending a shape that's only slightly complex

And follows discussion of sweep libraries, all OpenSCAD, not python.

NO, do not reply to this thread if you have an issue, don't be lazy,
start a new one, easy on the forum (click 'New Topic'),
or for Mailing-list users - send a NEW email,with a NEW Subject, to
discuss@lists.openscad.org

OpenSCAD Admin - email* me if you need anything,  or if I've done something stupid...

• on the Forum, click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

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

But shouldn't we always consider how a better programming language would  help solve these problems? Or is that OpenSCAD taboo?
Cheers, RobW

On 11 December 2020 9:02:48 pm AEDT, MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com wrote:

Wow.  BOSL has been talked about a LOT on this forum, and yet members do
not know about it.  That is surprising.

BOSL is a very full featured library

JOn

On 12/10/2020 10:04 PM, David wrote:

Rob:

If you want to talk about better programming languages, that is fine. 
Just put it under its own topic/thread, not under a "bending" topic
where no one will be able to find it later.

Jon

On 12/11/2020 6:01 AM, Rob Ward wrote:

If you don't like OpenSCAD for solving problems why not use a language you
do like? I don't think OpenSCAD will suddenly morph into Python
anytime soon.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:29, jon jon@jonbondy.com wrote: