[WP 34S] Ideas for improving unit conversions

[Bit]

(02-02-2014 04:44 PM)walter b Wrote:  About the different feet (of various kings and common men ): Please see p. 156 (of 244) for their explanations. What's wrong or unclear there?

As I wrote above, currently I only have access to the PDF manual (version 3.1, generated on Nov 30, 2012). I cannot figure out where page 156 is supposed to be in a different version of that document. Could you please give page references based on what's available online? Or did I miss something and is the 244 page version available somewhere in electronic form?
I'd prefer that to some thick block of dead trees anyway.

(02-02-2014 04:44 PM)walter b Wrote:  cft vs. cu ft: AFAIK blanks are no legal characters in a unit name on the WP 34S. There is no official abbreviation established (mess!) but cu.ft or ft³ or cbft would be possible, the latter matching sqft well (consistency is no criterium there, I know, but nevertheless). Could be changed. In fact, the cubic foot was only included for its conversion to liters which OTOH may be calculated easily taking the linear foot. So cft may be dropped as well.

I used two narrow spaces and modified dump_opcodes() in pretty.c to create aliases with the narrow spaces removed. It seems to work just fine. That said, 'cu.ft' may be a better idea.

(02-02-2014 04:44 PM)walter b Wrote:  acres: I don't see any acreUK on my WP 34S. Which build do you run?

I run a build I checked out from svn a few days ago (revision 3470). You're right, 'acreUK' doesn't show up on the WP 34S screen, but it's present in compile_cats.c.

(02-02-2014 04:44 PM)walter b Wrote:  

• sqft: Please see cft above. I vote against introducing sqft in CONV.
• mi/gal: In fact, that's inverse proportional to l/100 km. We did (and do) not intend to include any combined units in CONV for sake of keeping Pandora's box closed.
  

Fair enough, that's why I made both compile time options to begin with.

(02-02-2014 04:44 PM)walter b Wrote:  arrows: We've got some arrows being part of command names. Thus the sorting order.

I'm aware of that, but would changing the order of commands this way make it less logical than the current one? I thought it wouldn't but I might be missing something.