WP31s error recovery

[BarryMead]

(03-05-2015 09:39 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 08:29 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  Bob: I just flashed one of my wp34s calculators with the NEW wp31s.bin image and the UNDO of UNDO works as expected.
I do get 1,1,2,12 back in the registers after the 2nd UNDO using your example. I suspect that you flashed your calc with the
OLDER wp31s.bin image. This seems to be true, because when I just checked the "Download Count" only 1 person had downloaded
this latest file, and that was me to verify that it contained the latest version. Download, unzip, and flash your calc again with the latest
version and the UNDO of UNDO will work.

Barry: I didn't flash anything, I was just aswering Dieter's inquiry about what Undo of Undo should do.

A multi-step undo would be lovely of course, but not feasible for these memory-constrained machines.

The Undo of Undo back to just prior staet (flipping back and forth as it were) is, IMHO, the best solution as it's utterly consistent with the definiton of Undo and it gets you back to the stack you really may have wanted when you hit Undo the first time (something many Undos don't do).

BTW: Thanks for jumping all the way in and becoming another 31S/34S contributor! Like Pascal, Sanjeev, Jonathan and Bit before you, it lets more stuff get done without necessarily having to add work for Pauli or Marcus, plus adds some new eyes, ears and ideas from folks that can actually see and understand the code.
Edit to add thx.

It seems to work very well, and on the Qt Emulator version you can even exit the program, restart it, then press UNDO, and it will still toggle between the last two states. This is because Bit included an UNDO memory save/restore feature in his patches of the Qt emulator.
About "Jumping In", When you are having fun playing with toys like the WP-34S it doesn't seem like work. It just seems like a fun challenge to keep one's mind sharp. Once Bit helped me get my Linux based compiler working it was easy. I have contributed to hundreds
of open source projects over the years. Since I "USE" open source programs, like Linux, it just seems fair that I "GIVE BACK" to the open source community where I can.

[rprosperi]

(03-05-2015 09:51 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  Since I "USE" open source programs, like Linux, it just seems fair that I "GIVE BACK" to the open source community where I can.

I love that attitude, one we surely all benfit from. I would as well if I had those skills, but alas 'tis not to be. My own particular contribution to the 31S/34S project code base is to never touch it. Even looking too hard could cause issues.

Thanks again. It's interesting to follow along.

[Bit]

With the latest undo patch, if your press [f] [UNDO] when there's something in the command line, it just clears the command line first (and this can't be undone), just like [EXIT] does, and you need to press [f] [UNDO] again, to actually revert the last operation.

[1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [f] [UNDO] -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1
[f] [UNDO] again -> X=2 Y=1
[f] [UNDO] yet again -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1

I wonder if it'd be better if the first [f] [UNDO] just cleared the command line and at the same time also reverted the last operation...

[rprosperi]

(03-07-2015 04:29 AM)Bit Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:52 AM)Bit Wrote:  

With the latest undo patch, if your press [f] [UNDO] when there's something in the command line, it just clears the command line first (and this can't be undone), just like [EXIT] does, and you need to press [f] [UNDO] again, to actually revert the last operation.

[1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [f] [UNDO] -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1
[f] [UNDO] again -> X=2 Y=1
[f] [UNDO] yet again -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1

I wonder if it'd be better if the first [f] [UNDO] just cleared the command line and at the same time also reverted the last operation...

I agree, it probably would be better (more expected) to do what you suggest. Since the command line has not been saved and is inherently transient anyhow, user could still use [EXIT] if that was the goal, whereas [UNDO] is intended to restore a previously saved condition. This also keeps the behavior of [UNDO] entirely consistent, IMHO one of the most important aspects of a feature like this.

[Paul Dale]

(03-07-2015 04:29 AM)Bit Wrote:  I wonder if it'd be better if the first [f] [UNDO] just cleared the command line and at the same time also reverted the last operation...

I think so.


Pauli

[walter b]

(03-07-2015 02:09 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 04:29 AM)Bit Wrote:  With the latest undo patch, ...

I wonder if it'd be better if the first [f] [UNDO] just cleared the command line and at the same time also reverted the last operation...

I agree, it probably would be better (more expected) to do what you suggest. Since the command line has not been saved and is inherently transient anyhow, user could still use [EXIT] if that was the goal, whereas [UNDO] is intended to restore a previously saved condition. This also keeps the behavior of [UNDO] entirely consistent, IMHO one of the most important aspects of a feature like this.

I fullheartedly concur.

d:-)

[Bit]

(03-07-2015 04:29 AM)Bit Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:52 AM)Bit Wrote:  

With the latest undo patch, if your press [f] [UNDO] when there's something in the command line, it just clears the command line first (and this can't be undone), just like [EXIT] does, and you need to press [f] [UNDO] again, to actually revert the last operation.

[1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [f] [UNDO] -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1
[f] [UNDO] again -> X=2 Y=1
[f] [UNDO] yet again -> X=2 Y=2 Z=1

I wonder if it'd be better if the first [f] [UNDO] just cleared the command line and at the same time also reverted the last operation...

As requested: I've committed a patch, now UNDO clears the command line and also reverts the last operation.