Re: Is this another bug for the 35s? Message #6 Posted by Jeff O. on 2 Mar 2012, 1:12 p.m., in response to message #5 by Bart (UK)
Quote:
The step pointed to by a GTO or XEQ instruction is deleted...
Your first example is a case where a step between the XEQ and the step pointed to by the XEQ is deleted. If we delete the actual target of the jump, your example would be as follows:
K001 LBL K In this case K001 LBL K
K002 INPUT A deleting L002 K002 INPUT A
K003 XEQ L002 correctly gives K003 XEQ L002
K004 VIEW B ------------> K004 VIEW B
K005 RTN K005 RTN
L001 LBL L L001 LBL L
L002 B=pi*SQ(A) L002 RTN
L003 RTN
It is still inconsistent with the learning module information, as you say:
K001 LBL K Deleting K001 LBL K
K002 INPUT A L001 gives K002 INPUT A
K003 XEQ L001 ------------> K003 XEQ L001
K004 VIEW B K004 VIEW B
K005 RTN K005 RTN
L001 LBL L K006 B=pi*SQ(A)
L002 B=pi*SQ(A) K007 RTN
L003 RTN
when we would need the following to adhere to the rule:
K001 LBL K Deleting L001 K001 LBL K
K002 INPUT A should give K002 INPUT A
K003 XEQ L001 ------------> K003 XEQ K006
K004 VIEW B K004 VIEW B
K005 RTN K005 RTN
L001 LBL L K006 B=pi*SQ(A)
L002 B=pi*SQ(A) K007 RTN
L003 RTN
But this may actually be on purpose - the way it actually works preserves your intention to jump to a different label. That way if you accidentally deleted your label while editing, you would not have to go back and find all places where you meant to jump there and fix them. (It has been a while since I did much programming on the 35s, so forgive me if the above suffers from some logical flaw.) Either way, deleting the target of a jump must be handled with care, wouldn't you say?
Edited: 2 Mar 2012, 1:16 p.m.
|