### Author Topic: OT Basic  (Read 52290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Xeda112358

• they/them
• Moderator
• LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
• Posts: 4704
• Rating: +719/-6
• Calc-u-lator, do doo doo do do do.
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2011, 09:53:17 pm »
There will definitely need to be a char() command so that users can have access to all of the ASCII characters and this will allow for something like this to concatenate strings (like on the 89):
Code: [Select]
"Hello "&"World"&char(33

#### program4

• LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
• Posts: 158
• Rating: +15/-0
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2011, 09:05:04 pm »
I agree, too. This would also essentially allow digit to string conversion, if say char(62) corresponds to 1 then char(61+x) corresponds to x. But, number to string conversion would still have to be added separately.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 09:05:13 pm by program4 »

#### Xeda112358

• they/them
• Moderator
• LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
• Posts: 4704
• Rating: +719/-6
• Calc-u-lator, do doo doo do do do.
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2011, 09:33:26 pm »
Well it isn't very difficult in assembly, it just requires writing a byte.

#### Deep Toaster

• So much to do, so much time, so little motivation
• LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
• Posts: 8217
• Rating: +758/-15
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2011, 11:06:40 pm »
Maybe the ability to add quotation marks to a string would be nice, like using escape code or whatever it's called. Like, the " symbol means you type
Code: [Select]
/" and the / symbol means you type
Code: [Select]
// just like in Java. This would also allow for escape sequences like newline
Code: [Select]
/n

I'd actually suggest a backslash (\) instead. It's what languages like Java use, and using / could get messy when users want the division sign -- which could happen a lot on a calculator

#### jnesselr

• King Graphmastur
• LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
• Posts: 2270
• Rating: +81/-20
• TAO == epic
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2011, 01:48:15 pm »
Maybe the ability to add quotation marks to a string would be nice, like using escape code or whatever it's called. Like, the " symbol means you type
Code: [Select]
/" and the / symbol means you type
Code: [Select]
// just like in Java. This would also allow for escape sequences like newline
Code: [Select]
/n

I'd actually suggest a backslash (\) instead. It's what languages like Java use, and using / could get messy when users want the division sign -- which could happen a lot on a calculator
yeah, backslash definitely should be used.

#### program4

• LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
• Posts: 158
• Rating: +15/-0
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2011, 09:13:26 pm »
Oh oops, it looks like I forgot my Java.

#### AngelFish

• Is this my custom title?
• LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
• Posts: 3242
• Rating: +270/-27
• I'm a Fishbot
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2011, 09:25:18 pm »
I agree, too. This would also essentially allow digit to string conversion, if say char(62) corresponds to 1 then char(61+x) corresponds to x. But, number to string conversion would still have to be added separately.

I'd recommend going with hex and standard ASCII. That'd mean that char(31) would return "1" and char(62) would return "b." It'd also make things like char(546869732069732066756e) really easy to parse if they were in hex rather than decimal.
∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ

#### Xeda112358

• they/them
• Moderator
• LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
• Posts: 4704
• Rating: +719/-6
• Calc-u-lator, do doo doo do do do.
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2011, 09:33:38 pm »
I agree and I also think that to keep data smaller, the program should undergo a "tokenization" process like with the TI-89. This way, data can be converted directly to bytes that the parser can work with.

#### jnesselr

• King Graphmastur
• LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
• Posts: 2270
• Rating: +81/-20
• TAO == epic
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2011, 09:34:15 pm »
I agree, too. This would also essentially allow digit to string conversion, if say char(62) corresponds to 1 then char(61+x) corresponds to x. But, number to string conversion would still have to be added separately.

I'd recommend going with hex and standard ASCII. That'd mean that char(31) would return "1" and char(62) would return "b." It'd also make things like char(546869732069732066756e) really easy to parse if they were in hex rather than decimal.
agreed.  In fact, I like that a lot better.  But I like char(596F752772652072696768742C2074686973206973206C6F616473206F662066756E2E) better.

#### Deep Toaster

• So much to do, so much time, so little motivation
• LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
• Posts: 8217
• Rating: +758/-15
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #69 on: March 21, 2011, 10:49:23 am »
I agree, too. This would also essentially allow digit to string conversion, if say char(62) corresponds to 1 then char(61+x) corresponds to x. But, number to string conversion would still have to be added separately.

I'd recommend going with hex and standard ASCII. That'd mean that char(31) would return "1" and char(62) would return "b." It'd also make things like char(546869732069732066756e) really easy to parse if they were in hex rather than decimal.

I don't like the idea of having numbers be treated fundamentally as hex. It's bad for UI to say that the 62 in char(62) is hex, while the 62 in floor(62) is decimal.

#### jnesselr

• King Graphmastur
• LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
• Posts: 2270
• Rating: +81/-20
• TAO == epic
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #70 on: March 21, 2011, 12:00:16 pm »

I think %/$would be a good idea. They're hardly used in other situations. Unless we want to make them actual operators? EDIT: Btw, who's actually working on this? « Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 12:31:04 pm by Deep Thought » #### jnesselr • King Graphmastur • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000) • Posts: 2270 • Rating: +81/-20 • TAO == epic ##### Re: OT Basic « Reply #72 on: March 21, 2011, 12:39:46 pm » true. Maybe a lowercase b/h? or %/$?

I think %/\$ would be a good idea. They're hardly used in other situations.

Unless we want to make them actual operators?

EDIT: Btw, who's actually working on this?
We don't actually have a physical calc yet, so it's mostly conceptual atm.

• Guest
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #73 on: March 21, 2011, 01:49:35 pm »
I acutally like the idea of using hex for a char() command.  That's actually how most people denote chars.  If you want to make a decimal version, I suggest a Byte() or RShort() command.

Also, I suggest an optinional approach of OOP -- like C++.

#### Deep Toaster

• So much to do, so much time, so little motivation
• LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
• Posts: 8217
• Rating: +758/-15
##### Re: OT Basic
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2011, 01:55:45 pm »
I acutally like the idea of using hex for a char() command.  That's actually how most people denote chars.  If you want to make a decimal version, I suggest a Byte() or RShort() command.

People don't like inconsistency though. Plus if we don't make an exception for char( and instead let it take a value the same way as any other command, the OS code for it would be much, much smaller.

EDIT: We can always have a format for hex numbers, as graphmastur said.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 01:56:21 pm by Deep Thought »