WP43 News

[Walter]

Looks like inequalities to me, because of the x. But I get that you want to name the register.

These are inequalities (Ungleichungen), what else?

I am with Over_score, though, I like the register reference furthest to the left.

Can be done in principle but then you will have to left adjust the fractions themselves; else you will find the relational operators at different positions in the numeric rows which will hamper quick overview. So far, we generally right adjusted closed numbers.

EDIT: Here, both diplays are shown for comparison:

fractions.JPG (37.62 KiB) Viewed 1145 times

[H2X]

Looks like inequalities to me, because of the x. But I get that you want to name the register.

These are inequalities (Ungleichungen), what else?

Values - specifically rounded values, which happen to be in a particular register?

And which can move up and down the stack, into different registers, changing the inequalities as they move?

I am just saying how my mind perceives this.

[Walter]

Looks like inequalities to me, because of the x. But I get that you want to name the register.

These are inequalities (Ungleichungen), what else?

Values - specifically rounded values, which happen to be in a particular register?

And which can move up and down the stack, into different registers, changing the inequalities as they move?

If any of these rounded values moves one register up in stack, the relation stays unchanged, so it will become y > a/b or a/b < y, respectively. Further moves might lead to z > a/b or a/b < z etc. Trivial, isn't it?

[H2X]

If any of these rounded values moves one register up in stack, the relation stays unchanged, so it will become y > a/b or a/b < y, respectively. Further moves might lead to z > a/b or a/b < z etc. Trivial, isn't it?

It certainly isn't rocket science, that's for sure. Just giving feedback. I'll get used to whatever you decide.

[Bill K. - USA]

I think leaving off the register names is simplest and cleanest and quite intuitive.

Fractions2.jpg (25.36 KiB) Viewed 1124 times

e.g.,
Q: At the end of this calculation, what does the x-register contain?
A: Something a smidge greater than 4 and 84/167ths.

[H2X]

I think leaving off the register names is simplest and cleanest and quite intuitive.


Fractions2.jpg


e.g.,
Q: At the end of this calculation, what does the x-register contain?
A: Something a smidge greater than 4 and 84/167ths.

Bill's examples look like values. Just saying...

[Walter]

I think leaving off the register names is simplest and cleanest and quite intuitive.
...
e.g.,
Q: At the end of this calculation, what does the x-register contain?
A: Something a smidge greater than 4 and 84/167ths.

Bill's examples look like values. Just saying...

Beyond academics, Håkon, what do you want to point us to?

[anetzer]

I think leaving off the register names is simplest and cleanest and quite intuitive.

+1

Having seen all 3 proposals I concur with Bill…

[H2X]

I think leaving off the register names is simplest and cleanest and quite intuitive.
...
e.g.,
Q: At the end of this calculation, what does the x-register contain?
A: Something a smidge greater than 4 and 84/167ths.

Bill's examples look like values. Just saying...

Beyond academics, Håkon, what do you want to point us to?

Only the difference between the apparent use of > and < as a binary vs. unary operator. The former yields things which look like expressions, the latter things which look like values, and the possible question is what it is that lives on the stack - expressions or values. But such a question would be academic, I will admit.

I guess what I am non-academically saying, is that Bill's suggestion looks appealing to me. While I'll also get used to your suggestion, given time.

[redglyph]

Looking back at the keyboard layout, I have a question.

Why are the operators /*-+ on the left and the exit, up, down... on the right?

As Bob wrote already, this is a religuous topic Nevertheless I'll try to summarice the facts:

All of HP's pocket calculators up to and including the famous HP-41C had the arithmetic operators on the left below ENTER. The Voyagers had to put them on the right for obvious reasons. With the Pioneers, they staid on the right - but ENTER remained on the left. So much about HP's logical development.

There was a very extensive discussion of this topic on the forum of MoHPC in 2012 IIRC, followed by a poll. After all, many people agreed on ENTER and the 4 operators should be in the same column (for various reasons). And the poll resulted in our decision (we, the developers) to place the 4 operators on the left, backed by a majority of votes IIRC.

So, now they are there.

There is, however, a medicine for those who would rather die than accept the 4 operators there: you're free to reassign each and every key and function of the 43S except USR. Hope this helps.

I had the same reaction when I saw the layout.

The fact people are divided on the position of the +, -, * and / may come from being left- or right-handed.

As a right-handed individual, I find that having the most frequent keys in the arc of my right thumb more convenient when I hold the calculator. Reaching the left column is a little harder, so it's fine for the initial ENTER but it's nice to have the main binary operators on the left for me. When it's on the desk it doesn't matter as much, of course.

The same applies to the f and g keys, it's often used so I like to have them close to the bottom, not up there, while the up/down and XEQ keys are less often used I think. At the end of the day, it should be guided by ergonomics and statistics like keyboards. Though I know there were compromises with the AZERTY and QWERTY layouts for mechanical reasons, but Bépo is a very good example of an ergonomic-based decision.

It remains that there are right- and left-handed people, so it will never please everyone.

PS: yes, I know, it's a later answer. I knew of the WP 34S project but I'm just discovering this one, nice! Hopefully a good inspiration for a next Swissmicros calculator.