newRPL: symbolic numbers
|
12-30-2014, 10:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2014 08:34 AM by Gilles.)
Post: #23
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers
(12-30-2014 04:50 PM)Han Wrote: (...) It should remain that way as never before have we allowed an operator to be attached to a symbol -- without spaces. Han, I understand your point of view but 'It should remain that way as never before we...' is not a good argument. I remember RPL+ of Oliver Unter Ecker. He use for example these kinds of syntax : 5 =A as an alternative to 5 'A' STO 5 =+A as an alternative to 5 'A' STO+ ++A as an alternative to 1 'A' STO+ Less keystrokes and better lisibility in my opinion. Just a question of parser. I don't see any problem here. By the way, if M is the matrice [ [ 1 2 ] [3 4] ], you can do with the 50 `M(1,2)` instead of { 1, 2 } 'M' GET or `M(a+b,c+d)` instead of a b + c d + 2. -> LIST 'M' GET or 8 'M(1,2*c)' STO so why no operator attached to a symbol ? Exemple : M(1,2) @without space M(a+b,c+d) @without space 8 =M(1,2*c) 2 =*M(a,b) ++M(a,b) A B * =M M =MyNewMatrix 'sin(a)+cos(b)' =f If the parser can manage this in an efficiant way,I see only advantages in term of lisibility and efficiency.) Perhaps postfix notation will be better. ( M+= etc.) |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)