My example shows the need for handling of some sort, as long as an error doesn’t stop execution. Either way will work for that. The identification of the incoming operand number as a non-number and the handling-at every math function is one way of doing it, Preventing entry to math functions if the operand number is not defined as number, is another way.
Currently the 43S is allowing non-numbers passing through functions without crashing. My graph procedure therefore requires no special handling for the expected 0/0 state. I like it that way.
I do neither the spec nor the programming of the math functions in the 43S, and since I haven’t programmed the WP34S or HP42S or Free42, I cannot tell which way is most efficient, what the best is for the corner cases, and what the pros and cons of either way are, but you can read a lot more discussion on the GitLab 43S issues on this topic relating to the 43S.
My example shows the need for handling of some sort, as long as an error doesn’t stop execution. Either way will work for that. The identification of the incoming operand number as a non-number and the handling-at every math function is one way of doing it, Preventing entry to math functions if the operand number is not defined as number, is another way.
Currently the 43S is allowing non-numbers passing through functions without crashing. My graph procedure therefore requires no special handling for the expected 0/0 state. I like it that way.
I do neither the spec nor the programming of the math functions in the 43S, and since I haven’t programmed the WP34S or HP42S or Free42, I cannot tell which way is most efficient, what the best is for the corner cases, and what the pros and cons of either way are, but you can read a lot more discussion on the GitLab 43S issues on this topic relating to the 43S.