In my old fashioned calculator casio hr-100t (LED with paper roll),
there is a large button with both + and = marks on it.
On a newer one casio dm-1200v, there are separate buttons for + and =.
The = buttons also serves for 'grand total' but I think there is no
defacto standard for the usage of = button.
Втр, 02 Ноя 2010, Sherlock Ric писал(а):
> > From: Ian Clark
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 09:33
> >
> > > I agreed with Brian that I missed the "equals" button in the original
> > calc.ijs. Now I miss the "plus" button. It seems unintuitive to press
> > "=" when you want to add.
> >
> > Hahaha! (Can't please everybody.) Can I interest you in a more
> > advanced calculator? It's called J ... :-)
> >
> > I'm just glad I wasn't on the design team of the original pocket
> > calculator. It's subtler than it looks.
> >
> > Providing both '+' and '=' buttons means adding a whole row or column
> > of buttons or it looks untidy. I've a calc with the conventional
> > look'n'feel -- but IMO it's too complex to serve as a good demo.
> >
>
> I've attached an alternative layout to the JinaDay wiki page (named
> calc2.ijs) that includes separate '=' and '+' buttons. There are also some
> minor changes to some of the verbs to make it work more like my calculator
> and make it easier for users to add other operation buttons. See if you think
> that works/looks OK.
>
> > > The current phrasing of your "blasphemous comment" has more impact
> > but I get the feeling that your actual message is more like: "There is
> > no need to get your head around tacit definition". The fact is that
> > many of the button handlers in the calc script use tacit code! I
> > suppose it comes down to whether you think that being provocative
> > rather than reassuring will help get your message across best.
> >
> > "Here Be Dragons..."
> >
> > I meant to be reassuring by being provocative. Reassuring (to APLers)
> > by being (or, rather, risking being) provocative to J-ers.
> >
> > De-mystifying a topic is never free from the insinuation that the
> > mystery is intentional: or at the very least, serving someone's
> > purpose. People are quite smart, you know. If a mystery serves no
> > purpose -- or no one's purpose -- it soon gets cleared up. It follows
> > that de-mystification is apt be viewed as de-bunking.
> >
> > It wasn't my intention to debunk. Simply to cast some light. Maybe to
> > let in some fresh air.
> >
> > On first encountering APL my initial response was to feel inadequate.
> > I should have felt humble, but instead I felt humiliated. Because at
> > the time I was masquerading as a "computer scientist", ie an expert.
> > This was back in 1973, when the industry was less fragmented. It was
> > "IBM and the Seven Dwarfs" -- and I was IBM.
> >
> > So I looked for holes. For excuses to label APL as mad, not brilliant.
> > Then I'd be exposed as sane, not stupid. It reassured me to swap sly
> > remarks about the language, especially as others felt the same as I.
> >
> > On first encountering J, I experienced the selfsame feeling I had on
> > first meeting APL. It largely revolved around "tacit programming".
> > Attempts by those who'd Seen The Light to motivate me by saying "it's
> > really quite easy" -- or -- "it's far better than APL doing it this
> > way" simply provoked hostility. And not just in me, I observed.
> >
> > So there was a barrier to surmount, before I could contemplate J
> > equably, let alone consider using it myself for a serious task.
> >
> > Tacit programming _isn't_ "really quite easy". In principle, maybe...
> > But in practice it's as much a strain as coding in 68000 ASM. (Yes,
> > done that -- and sold the result).
> >
> > And that, I think, is the way to look at it. Those who can do it can
> > justly be proud of their skill. But nobody is ashamed of not being
> > able to compose 68000 machine code in their heads without computer
> > assistance, so why should they be when it's tacit J?
> >
> > There is this difference. Machine-code is best kept beneath the
> > covers. But tacit J beneficially seeps out. As you observe, there's
> > tacit code in calc.ijs.
> >
> > IMO the issue over tacit J is not whether we should banish (digit&1)
> > from calc.ijs, but whether we should aim to make novices ashamed of
> > writing:
> > quo=: 3 : 'Q,(":>y),Q' NB. place datum in quotes
> > instead of:
> > quo=: Q , Q ,~ [: ": >
> > because that, I think, has been counter-productive.
> >
> > They'll do so in the end... and like as not they won't know they're
> > doing it.
>
> I agree that it is counterproductive to denigrate the use of explicit
> definition. I don't think that happens really, although I know that a lot of
> code on the forums is tacit. As I said recently on comp.lang.apl I think this
> is really just a side effect of more experienced users thinking and working
> more in tacit mode.
>
> I remember when I started learning J that I pretty much "ignored" trying to
> create tacit verbs - I was content to stick with explicit. I found the tacit
> code on the forum hard to read/understand. I think my biggest hurdle in
> coming to terms with tacit was being able to reliably identify the parts of
> speech for J's various primitives (verb vs adverb vs conjunction). Without
> that knowledge it is hard to identify the composed verbs and correctly
> separate the hooks from the forks. As I learnt the J primitives and their
> parts of speech, suddently tacit didn't seem so hard after all, and now I
> find myself using it in preference to explicit for many sentences.
>
> Having said that I'd be more inclined to promote the use this form than the
> one liner string form above. Otherwise things can get messy when dealing with
> strings.
> quo=: 3 : 0
> Q,(":>y),Q
> )
>
> Ric
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
regards,
====================================================
GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
