Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

slawek39 · (This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 05:06 PM by slawek39.)

The result from the attached picture is incorrect.

Tim Wessman · (This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 06:45 PM by Tim Wessman.)

How should the system know that first number is meant to be a radian angular value and not just a plain number?

You have a regular number (~.78839...) minus an angular value of 45. Following conventions, the first item in the calculation takes precedence in determining what the result will be. I'm not sure why you are thinking this is a bug.

slawek39 · 01-11-2017, 06:49 PM

TI V200 gives 0 in such a situation

Tim Wessman · (This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 07:03 PM by Tim Wessman.)

Only when you are in radians mode, else it probably returns pi/4-45deg which is a bug in the TI methodology. What happens when you try it in degree/grads? Is that consistent with the behavior you are requesting?

Can you try .735398...-45deg? Why doesn't it assume that is a numerical radian value in this case?

Why should the system *assume* that plain untagged number is an angular value, let alone radians?

I'm fine to make changes with good reason, but simply "TI does it that way" is not really a good reason.

Claudio L. · 01-11-2017, 07:46 PM

For the record, we had a very complete discussion about this and other angle-related issues not long ago in this thread.

No matter which convention you choose, there will be some flaws under some conditions.

Tim Wessman · 01-11-2017, 08:20 PM

(01-11-2017 07:46 PM)Claudio L. Wrote: For the record, we had a very complete discussion about this and other angle-related issues not long ago in this thread.

No matter which convention you choose, there will be some flaws under some conditions.

Thanks. I definitely missed seeing that thread. Definitely highlights the problems with simply "making a change".