ABB Bugs and Wishlist

    • Official Post

    Well, the KUKA and Fanuc forums have a Bugs&Wishlist pinned thread, so why should ABB miss out on the fun? :fish:

    To start things off, something minor but annoying: I love the RAPID editor in RobotStudio most of the time, and I make heavy use of the Format button. But that button has one odd behavior I really dislike: breaking inline comments off onto their own lines.

    Everyone has their own opinion on inline comments -- that is, lines like this:

    VAR num nCounter; ! Local Counter Variable

    Now, everyone has their own opinion on inline comments. And there is an issue where using an inline comment can push the comment off the right edge of the FlexPendant screen (in fact, I've seen some programmers use that to conceal comments from people who don't understand the horizontal scroll). But the way the Format button handles them just gripes me.

    Not only does hitting the Format button take anything after the ; and move it to a new line, it puts that new line after the original -- effectively, it just adds a Line Feed between the ; and the !.

    Which has the effect of moving the inline comment after the line of code it was originally part of! Like this:

    VAR num nCounter;

    ! Local Counter Variable

    Which is just completely counterintuitive!

    It would be nice if there was an option to have the Format button leave inline comments alone. And if that option is de-selected, the inline comment should wrap above the executable code, not below. Or heck, maybe make that an option too.

  • AD
  • To be able to set a bit in a word simpler, in PLCs I usually use a word called nHandshake.

    nHandshake.%X1 := TRUE;

    Would make my mapping easier.

    Also that the damn pulse function would stop retaining the value if the robot is stopped during the time it's executing. I don't know how many times I've had to fix this error by adding the \high parameter to a pulse or just replacing it with set/reset instead.

  • BitSet and BitClear would seem to be the functions you want?

    I could use those, yes. But they make the code ugly imo :D

    One thing that would be nice though would be if you could map a record to a GI. Imagine not having to modify the sysconfig every time you want to rename a signal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new account
Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign in Now