Post Reply 
newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-10-25]
10-30-2017, 01:16 PM
Post: #220
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-10-25]
(10-29-2017 10:11 AM)Gilles59 Wrote:  
(10-28-2017 03:36 AM)Claudio L. Wrote:  I think that difference between RCL and STO threw me off, I thought they were consistent. In any case, I think I came up with a decent compromise(...)

I like this...

There is another functionality (i dont know if this is documented and dont remind where I saw this the first time) that I use often with stock HP50G and could be interesting in NewRPL. It'a a kind of 'auto-evaluated' algebraic expression like this : `Algebraic`. For example :

`m*g/(√ ((2*m*g)/(c*p*s))`
is equivalent to
'm*g/(√((2*m*g)/(c*p*s))' EVAL

To get `` on a stock HP50g : RShift hold '

I also notice that the algebraic syntax 'L(n)' dont work in new RPL. Ex :

{11 12 13 14 } 'L' STO
'L(3)' EVAL ( or `L(3)` ) returns 13
99 'L(3)' STO
change L in { 11 12 99 14 }

[[ 1 2] [3 4]] 'M' STO
`M(2,2)` returns 4
If a and b are 2, `M(a,b)` returns 4
99 'M(a,b)' STO change M in [[ 1 2] [3 99]]

Imo this allows much more readibility in certain programs with a lot of algebraic expressions or tables (list or matrice), or with GET PUT instructions.


The backtick behavior in RPL is only a side effect of the algebraic mode (everything you enter in algebraic mode uses that backtick to EVAL directly as soon as you enter it). I don't discard implementing it eventually.
Indexing in algebraic expressions will be implemented, the only reason it wasn't implemented yet is the matrix module was very green (incomplete), but I'm working on that currently, so this would be next in line. I agree in the readability of the notation versus PUT/GET commands (although it may not be considered pure RPL)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Messages In This Thread
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-10-25] - Claudio L. - 10-30-2017 01:16 PM

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)