newRPL: symbolic numbers
12-30-2014, 02:19 PM
Post: #19
 Claudio L. Senior Member Posts: 1,840 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers
It seems Han's suggestion is merely changing the symbol from the dot to ~. Other than that, it appears to have the exact same effect as we've been discussing (Han, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

(12-30-2014 10:00 AM)Gilles Wrote:  In my opinion, the '.' is ->NUM and not EVAL.

Yes, it seems ->NUM is more appropriate.

(12-30-2014 10:00 AM)Gilles Wrote:  I would like this but the disadvantage is that the ~ is not directly on the keyboard with only a keypress on the contrary of .
That's important. we'd have to find a non-shifted key to dedicate to ~, versus the dot being readily available and physically close to the numbers.
What about the numbers? Do we display 4~?
3 INV -> 0.3333333~
or perhaps prefix:
3 INV -> ~0.3333333 (I like this, more mathematically correct)

Do we use ~f(4) or f~(4)? I think prefix is perhaps better.

One more thing in favor of the dot: on a proportional font (which newRPL uses), a dot only takes 2 pixels wide, versus the ~ symbol taking 4 or 5 pixels.
'3~*X^2-pi~'
'~3*X^2-~pi'
'3.*X^2-pi.'

The expression above looks much shorter with the dot (at least in my browser).

So we have:
* Keyboard accessibility: dot is better
* Screen space: dot is better
* Readability (and clarity of intent): ~ is better
* Mathematical correctness: ~ is better

It seems we are tied 2-2. Any other tie-breaker comments anyone?

(12-30-2014 10:00 AM)Gilles Wrote:  Another thing, I like that uppercase and lowercase are not the same thing in commands and functions in RPL.
But i would be pleased if all the native commands and functions in newRLP will use lowercases instead of uppercases : start next , for next , cos, sin ... (or Start For Next Cos, Sin) are more readable and less agressive than START NEXT or FOR NEXT COS SIN

That wouldn't be a problem, it's relatively easy to change. The First-Letter Capitalization looks good, but it'd force you to change CAPS mode very often (extra keystrokes).
So we are between full lowercase and full uppercase. I think we need to hear more opinions in this matter before making a decision. I'm neutral, as uppercase doesn't bother me, but I'm also used to lowercase from C.
 « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Messages In This Thread newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-22-2014, 11:01 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - John Galt - 12-23-2014, 01:13 AM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-23-2014, 03:34 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Nigel (UK) - 12-23-2014, 12:06 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-23-2014, 03:10 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-23-2014, 05:22 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Nigel (UK) - 12-23-2014, 05:57 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-23-2014, 09:01 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Nigel (UK) - 12-23-2014, 09:49 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-24-2014, 03:15 AM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - brouhaha - 12-23-2014, 09:27 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Gilles - 12-24-2014, 11:12 AM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-24-2014, 07:51 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-29-2014, 03:19 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Gilles - 12-29-2014, 07:38 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-29-2014, 10:21 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Han - 12-29-2014, 09:33 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Gilles - 12-30-2014, 10:00 AM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-30-2014 02:19 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - rprosperi - 12-30-2014, 02:26 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Han - 12-30-2014, 04:50 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-30-2014, 07:18 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Gilles - 12-30-2014, 10:18 PM RE: newRPL: symbolic numbers - Claudio L. - 12-30-2014, 10:39 PM

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