Re: HP-39g II Acquistion Message #34 Posted by Manolo Sobrino on 22 July 2012, 1:42 a.m., in response to message #33 by Tim Wessman
EEX as a primary key makes a lot of sense, as you will probably be using it much more than the Ln key for instance. It's difficult though in this layout: I assume you had to keep the 2nd and 3rd rows that way. If that's the case there might be a chance if you would remove the (-) keystroke and use the - key for the minus sign. You could put the EEX there as Casio does, it is quite useful.
It's about time that calculators with an (algebraic) equation input system unify the (-) sign and the - operation. Maybe there would be a problem with the parser, I don't know... I've used only two calculators that treat the - (operation) as a sign: the Casios Fx 5500L(A), which strangely has a pointless separate (-) key too, and the Fx 850p/880p, which uses just a - key for everything.
If you could transfer the contents of "Views" into additional Modes (or even better move it to the soft menus, just like Sto), then you could move "Math" to the 3rd row, and you would have room for the (-) sign and EEX as primary keys. In that case leaving EEX just above the numbers (like hp 50g, TI 8x, even Sharp) would be good enough IMHO.
If none of the above options are available and EEX has to be shifted whether you like it or not *sigh*, the closer to the numbers the better.
"a b/c" key works great, and the algorithm is outstanding. The problem I see is that it is too good :). I mean, when you are able to find a rational approximation to the whole precision of the machine (I've used the default settings in the emulator), then every number seems to be a rational indeed to the student. In an educational tool like this one, I see a pedagogical trouble: You tell the students that there are (very) different kinds of numbers and then your calculator is able to make all them rational without further explanation.
Anyway, you have some done some impressive things with the OS. Congratulations again.
Edited: 22 July 2012, 2:48 a.m.
|