HP Forums
35s label-less programming - so close yet so far - Printable Version

+- HP Forums (https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum)
+-- Forum: HP Calculators (and very old HP Computers) (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: General Forum (/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: 35s label-less programming - so close yet so far (/thread-13790.html)



35s label-less programming - so close yet so far - David Hayden - 10-10-2019 09:39 PM

[ Edited to say GTO/XEQ lines are NOT adjusted properly. Dang - the one word I skipped is the key to the entire post! Thanks ijabbott for pointing out my error.]

The 35s GTO and XEQ instruction lets you go to any line number within a label. Whenever you insert or delete a program line, the calculator is supposed to adjust the GTO & XEQ instructions accordingly. If you delete the target of a GTO/XEQ, the GTO/XEQ remains unchanged, meaning that the new target is the line after the deleted line, which now occupies the deleted line's former spot.

If this worked properly, then label-less programming would be easy and pretty cool:
  • write your code using labels A-Z as you would on many other RPN calcs.
  • When you're program works, just delete the LBL lines! GTO/XEQ instructions that went to the label would now go to the instruction that followed it.
Alas, there's a known bug: if you delete a LBL line, the GTO/XEQ lines are not adjusted properly.

Sigh. This would have been very cool if it worked right. You could just reserve a bunch of labels for development work and delete them when your program is okay.

So close, yet so far.

Dave


RE: 35s label-less programming - so close yet so far - ijabbott - 10-11-2019 09:07 AM

(10-10-2019 09:39 PM)David Hayden Wrote:  Alas, there's a known bug: if you delete a LBL line, the GTO/XEQ lines are adjusted properly.

Not?


RE: 35s label-less programming - so close yet so far - David Hayden - 10-11-2019 01:26 PM

(10-11-2019 09:07 AM)ijabbott Wrote:  
(10-10-2019 09:39 PM)David Hayden Wrote:  Alas, there's a known bug: if you delete a LBL line, the GTO/XEQ lines are adjusted properly.

Not?
Correct! I'll edit my post. Thanks for pointing that out.