newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-10-25]
|
10-10-2017, 12:58 PM
Post: #181
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-10-2017 10:20 AM)brickviking Wrote:(09-23-2017 12:27 AM)Claudio L. Wrote: That's strange. I created the installer using the open source Excelsior installer, and tested it before uploading. It created a desktop icon, and inside the menu group there's the uninstaller and the actual program. I'm also using Windows 10 on this machine. Perhaps uninstall and try again? Thanks for your input. It seems I need to do a few things: a) Try a new installer creator completely. b) Research what are those Qt plugins (??), in the 2 machines I tested it the installation failed to create the icons but the program ran fine with the installed DLLs (one machine had Qt installed, the other one didn't). I suspect the file platform/qwindows.dll is the file it couldn't find on your machine, but I have no idea what needs to be done for the application to find it. c) Add a link to the wiki per your suggestion. |
|||
10-10-2017, 09:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2017 09:37 PM by brickviking.)
Post: #182
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-10-2017 12:58 PM)Claudio L. Wrote:(10-10-2017 08:58 PM)brickviking Wrote: All that got installed on my system were: libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll (no version), libstdc++-6.dll (no version), libwinpthread-1.dll (1.0.0.0), QT5Core.dll (5.8.0.0), QT5GUI.dll (5.8.0.0) and QT5Widgets.dll (5.8.0.0), newrpl-ui.exe, Uninstall.exe and platforms\qwindows.dll (5.8.0.0). I've stuck the versions I found into my post after about the ninth edit. Sorry about that, your post and my last edit crossed paths, it would seem. Do you want my install.log file? And I installed on 32-bit Vista. (Post 116) Regards, BrickViking HP-50g |Casio fx-9750G+ |Casio fx-9750GII (SH4a) |
|||
10-17-2017, 06:23 PM
Post: #183
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Found an issue with local variable assignments via the arrow. If you do:
<< 1 2 3 -> a b c << >> >> It treats the a as 'a', but it just calls the variables for b and c. This is no problem in a standalone program, but if you call this routine from another that has assigned b or c, you get an error. You can get around this with HIDELOCALS, but I don't think that should be necessary in this case. Or if it is, I don't see why a and b should be treated differently. |
|||
10-18-2017, 04:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 04:47 PM by Claudio L..)
Post: #184
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-17-2017 06:23 PM)The Shadow Wrote: Found an issue with local variable assignments via the arrow. If you do: Excellent catch! I need to see why it stops at the first variable when adding quotes, all of them are supposed to be 'quoted' during compilation. Will be fixed ASAP. EDIT: Found it and fixed it. By the way, for all the followers, I've gone quiet recently because things are cooking in newRPL. A lot of the matrix commands were implemented in the past couple of weeks, I also added the first numeric solver (PROOT, using Laguerre's method) and works great. The idea is to finish all the commands in the matrix module, that's a lot of algorithms that need to be implemented, some of them not-so-trivial so it's taking quite a bit of time. On another subject, that means the number of implemented commands finally reached 50%!!! It's been a long road to get to 50%, and once the matrix module and numeric solvers are complete, most of the math power will be ready to use, as the vast majority of the commands yet to be implemented are UI related, plotting, etc. (which is a big topic, I admit). |
|||
10-20-2017, 09:35 AM
Post: #185
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Congrats on all the progress, Claudio! I'm really looking forward to the matrix commands. (Will you implement the Hermite and Smith normal forms at this time, or is that for later?)
Where does the forms engine fit in this roadmap? You've mentioned adding bits and pieces of it for some time. Is there a new version added with the local variable arrow fix? |
|||
10-20-2017, 01:03 PM
Post: #186
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Found another bug. If you take the FLOOR of any number between -1 and 0, you get 1 instead of -1.
|
|||
10-20-2017, 10:54 PM
Post: #187
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-20-2017 09:35 AM)The Shadow Wrote: Congrats on all the progress, Claudio! I'm really looking forward to the matrix commands. (Will you implement the Hermite and Smith normal forms at this time, or is that for later?) Not yet, since I was in the middle of the polynomial solver and didn't want to publish a half-working ROM. I'll push an update in a couple of days more. Regarding the forms engine... I started but I'm not fully convinced that what I wanted to implement was the best idea, so I put it in the freezer while I rethink the whole concept. In the meanwhile I want to make progress in the numerical area, since I need it for work, more than the forms. (10-20-2017 01:03 PM)The Shadow Wrote: Found another bug. If you take the FLOOR of any number between -1 and 0, you get 1 instead of -1. Fixed. Thank you! |
|||
10-21-2017, 08:48 PM
Post: #188
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
I get a 'new' 500Mb SDCard.
NewRPL installed on a 50g. I will begin some tests ;D |
|||
10-22-2017, 08:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2017 09:01 AM by Gilles59.)
Post: #189
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
While exploring the A028819 sequence https://oeis.org/A028819 I notice a different behavior between UserRPL and NewRPL about parallel processing with test.
This program shows if a number ( > 3) is part of the A028819 serie : Code: << SQ ->STR UTF8-> ΔLIST 0 ≥ >> It works fine (and quickly !) but in a different way than UserRPL : { 1 6 4 } 5 > returns { 0. 1. 0. } in UserRPL and 0 in newRPL { 7 8 9 } 5 > returns { 1. 1. 1. } in UserRPL and 1 in NewRPL Is this by design or an anomaly ? |
|||
10-22-2017, 02:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2017 03:04 PM by Claudio L..)
Post: #190
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-22-2017 08:41 AM)Gilles59 Wrote: While exploring the A028819 sequence https://oeis.org/A028819 I notice a different behavior between UserRPL and NewRPL about parallel processing with test. This is a regression, unintendedly broken by the implementation of the new ISTRUE operator. Some special operators must return true or false, even for lists (only the SAME and ISTRUE operators will behave this way), but all the others weren't supposed to change! I'll fix this ASAP. EDIT: Fixed, I'll see if I can push a new ROM out tomorrow. Thanks for the report! |
|||
10-23-2017, 07:12 PM
Post: #191
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
I'm little lost with displaying and formating options.
What is the list of arguments to restore the default behavior with SETNFMT ? |
|||
10-23-2017, 07:28 PM
Post: #192
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Hello. Thank you for this powerful environment. When will the usb driver support appear? This is especially important for 39&40(save/load programs/data list).
|
|||
10-24-2017, 03:08 AM
Post: #193
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-23-2017 07:12 PM)Gilles59 Wrote: I'm little lost with displaying and formating options. Here it is: Code:
In human words: "normal size" numbers are displayed with 12 decimal figures (so they look the same as a stock 50g, even though the precision is 32 digits by default). Numbers smaller than 1E-12 are displayed with 12 figures, but in SCI mode. Numbers larger than 1E12 also use the same SCI mode with 12 digits. The wiki explains every single detail, but it's a little hard to read, could use a few more examples. (10-23-2017 07:28 PM)okkama Wrote: Hello. Thank you for this powerful environment. When will the usb driver support appear? This is especially important for 39&40(save/load programs/data list). I know, it's essential on those machines. What I did so far is to find a raw HID USB library originally developed for the Teensy board project which I can try to port (it's for a completely different CPU, but the USB interaction logic is good). The library is self-contained, single file and BSD licensed, so it fits newRPL very well. Unfortunately I haven't done much more than stare at the source code wondering where to start the surgery. I can't give you any specific date, since USB drivers require me to have the physical calculator connected to a computer, and that doesn't fit my "code whenever I can on whatever device falls in my hands" style, but I can tell you it's in the pipeline and I'm well aware that's the only connection to the world for the 39 and 40, and will also be the only connection in a future port to the Prime, so it's very important to get it working. |
|||
10-24-2017, 04:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2017 04:58 PM by Gilles59.)
Post: #194
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-24-2017 03:08 AM)Claudio L. Wrote:(10-23-2017 07:12 PM)Gilles59 Wrote: I'm little lost with displaying and formating options.(...) I agree about the interest of more examples. An example is sometimes more undesrtable that lot of words ;D I also noticed that : PI ( LS SPC ) NUM-> return "Undefined variable" Stock HP50G returns 3.14.... |
|||
10-24-2017, 05:57 PM
Post: #195
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15] | |||
10-24-2017, 11:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2017 11:38 PM by Gilles59.)
Post: #196
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Difference between UserRPL an NewRPL :
In UserRPL : 1 { 2 2 + } IFT returns 4 In NewRPL 1 {2 2 + } IFT returns {2 2 +} I guess its because UserRPL eval the list with IFT (wich doesnt seem very logic in fact...). |
|||
10-25-2017, 01:15 AM
Post: #197
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
(10-24-2017 05:57 PM)The Shadow Wrote:(10-24-2017 04:57 PM)Gilles59 Wrote: PI ( LS SPC ) NUM-> return "Undefined variable" Constants are not implemented yet (complex i, pi, e, and a few others). The implemented pi0 is not a constant, in the sense that it cannot be used in a symbolic expression. It's a command (temporary), which returns pi with twice the system precision. (10-24-2017 11:38 PM)Gilles59 Wrote: Difference between UserRPL an NewRPL : This is indeed a difference between newRPL and userRPL, and is deliberate. userRPL only has EVAL, so it does just that, but it has the bad habit of executing lists as programs. I don't agree with that, I think if you put a list on the stack is because you want to return a list, otherwise you would've put a program. newRPL has 3 different evaluation functions: XEQ, EVAL and EVAL1. EVAL is for the most part identical to userRPL. EVAL does evaluation, and for lists it only makes sense to EVAL each element of the list (like all other operators, it is passed straight to the elements in the list). The behavior of executing the list as a program always seemed out of place to me. EVAL1 is similar to EVAL but doesn't recurse the evaluation of symbolics. It only evaluates one level, allowing recursion formulas to work: 'X+1' 'X' STO Then doing 'X' EVAL1 will return 'X+1', another EVAL1 will become 'X+2', etc. In this case, EVAL would complain of circular reference. Finally, XEQ is short for execute. For most objects, XEQting them means they just push themselves to the stack. Programs of course get executed (this is the main purpose of XEQ) but other objects like lists and symbolics are left untouched. As you may have guessed, IFT doesn't do EVAL but XEQ in newRPL, so a program will get executed, but lists/symbolics remain as they are in the stack. Depending on what you are doing, you may need to add an EVAL after IFT if you are porting code from userRPL. For example: 'X+1' 'X<4' 'X*2' 'X^2' IFTE + On userRPL, IFTE would EVAL 'X*2' or 'X^2', so if X is 3, it would return 'X+1+6'. On newRPL, IFTE would do ISTRUE('X<4') and then XEQ('X*2') so in the same case it would return 'X+1+X*2'. It's not better or worse, just different. |
|||
10-25-2017, 07:59 AM
Post: #198
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Thank You Claudio for those detailled explanations. It makes sense
|
|||
10-25-2017, 01:34 PM
Post: #199
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
Hi Claudio, did you think about the possibilty to introduce EXIT and BREAK instructions in NewRPL?
|
|||
10-25-2017, 04:10 PM
Post: #200
|
|||
|
|||
RE: newRPL: Alpha demo 0.9 released [UPDATED 2017-09-15]
The one benefit of lists being evaluated as programs was that such programs were easy to alter on the fly. However, it certainly isn't hard to use strings to change programs to lists and vice versa, and I currently have a newRPL program that does just that. (Also one to change regular programs to immediate ones.)
Not having to constantly type << EVAL >> MAP, on the other hand, to say nothing of AXL << EVAL >> MAP AXL, may have saved me from carpal tunnel. |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 31 Guest(s)