Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by TheLoneWolfling on Friday August 30, 2013 @03:52PM
(#6303824)
The one issue I've already had with RPN is that you require a separator between numbers anyways - in RPN it's too easy to parse "23 4 +" as "2 34 +", for example, especially if you're writing quickly.
Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by anonymouz on Saturday August 31, 2013 @04:28AM
(#6306212)
On the HP calculators the separator would usually be the enter key. I think the old ones displayed just the top entry of the stack, on the newer ones with bigger display you see the stack with each entry on one line.
Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by orclev on Friday August 30, 2013 @07:00PM
(#6304722)
Might have been better to demonstrate that using subtraction as addition is commutative and thus either one works fine in this case.
Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by sokoloff on Friday August 30, 2013 @09:31PM
(#6305269)
One is 27; the other is 36.
Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by orclev on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @04:44PM
(#6330341)
LOL, apparently I suck as a parser. I read them as just swaps of the numbers, I.E. 23 4 + vs. 4 23 +.
Re:Reversing Sinclair's amazing 1974 calculator hack - half ...
by pavel_lishin on Friday August 30, 2013 @03:29PM
(#6303713)
I learned it for some scholastic competition once. You're right, after the initial confusion, it was fast and intuitive.
I've forgotten it all now, of course. How often do I need to calculate something?
RPN vs Infix/Algebraic used to be a holy-war topic. Like emacs vs vi, or iPhone vs Android.
Once you go RPN, you can never go back again.