newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 20171025]

08302017, 09:55 PM
Post: #76




RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 20170824]
(08302017 05:42 PM)The Shadow Wrote: Some suggested extended types: That's in the queue. The matrix library is incomplete and in much need of a revision. It was written before TYPE was implemented, now it's time to revisit and provide all that information. Soon I'll attack that library and make a big push in terms of new commands implemented and better algorithms. I'll keep these suggestions in mind. Some might be time consuming, like the last one. There's no way to know if it can be >NUM'ed unless you actually do it, but there will be a way to identify if a matrix is numeric, symbolic but with all numeric constants (in other words, numeric with fractions or nonrationals). (08302017 05:42 PM)The Shadow Wrote: Also, I just discovered that '0' counts as nonzero for purposes of IF, but not for NOT. I don't know if this is intended, but it's definitely unexpected. In newRPL the definition is that FALSE is real or complex zero, everything else is true. The IF command only checks if the argument is false, because in the modular architecture, the idea was that IF should be independent of the object types, so adding new objects makes them automatically work well with IF. So far it worked well, but on symbolics there's an incompatibility, since classic RPL evaluates the symbolic (and newRPL should too). I'm still debating how to resolve this issue. I think to keep IF independent of object types, it should >NUM its argument before checking if it's false, but this might make it nonatomic as >NUM might execute RPL code (specifically on lists it does MAP to each element). There's also the possibility of adding an overloadable unary operator ISFALSE to all object types. This way it each object can define its own behavior. For example an empty list or a list containing all zeros could be false too, but that's something the list library should define. Anyway, it will be fixed eventually, but it needs some more thought. (08302017 05:42 PM)The Shadow Wrote: EDIT: I also just discovered that trying to find the inverse of the matrix: The algorithm for matrix inversion doesn't do partial pivoting yet, so any zeros in the diagonal will make it fail. Like I said, the matrix library is next in line for an overhaul. I'll look at those programs., and the list you sent me. Will keep you updated. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)