#<=, #>= Why not? - Hewlett Packard

This is a discussion on #<=, #>= Why not? - Hewlett Packard ; Hello, Anybody know why #>= or # was/is the reasoning behind this? I imagine there is a reason I am not aware of. Jacob...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: #<=, #>= Why not?

  1. #<=, #>= Why not?

    Hello,

    Anybody know why #>= or #<= are not part of the test options? What
    was/is the reasoning behind this? I imagine there is a reason I am
    not aware of.

    Jacob

  2. Re: #<=, #>= Why not?

    On Aug 3, 6:38*am, Jacob Wall wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > Anybody know why #>= or #<= are not part of the test options? *What
    > was/is the reasoning behind this? *I imagine there is a reason I am
    > not aware of.
    >
    > Jacob


    Aren't they the same as < and > ?

    Arnaud

  3. Re: #<=, #>= Why not?

    Hello,

    "Jacob Wall" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:51d43e36-4931-42ef-97d0-13256b6877ea@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hello,
    >
    > Anybody know why #>= or #<= are not part of the test options? What
    > was/is the reasoning behind this? I imagine there is a reason I am
    > not aware of.
    >

    I don't know the reasons (B.W.: LISARIF;-),
    but you can use other words to get the same results:

    '#>=' is equivalent to '#< NOT'
    '#<=' is equivalent to '#> NOT'


    HTH

    Raymond



  4. Re: #<=, #>= Why not?

    About what calculator is that question?

    RT> I don't know the reasons (B.W.: LISARIF;-),

    The Bill Wickes quote and other HP computer history
    (memorize for next week's closed book test

    http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/hp150faq.txt

    -[ ]-

  5. Re: #<=, #>= Why not?

    > '#>=' *is equivalent to *'#< NOT'
    > '#<=' *is equivalent to *'#> NOT'



    Thanks Raymond, I wonder when that would have dawned on me.

    The question was for the 50g, should have mentioned that right off.

  6. Re: #<=, #>= Why not?

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:48:49 -0500, Jacob Wall wrote:

    > The question was for the 50g


    So evidently the question is about _SysRPL_ on all HP48/49/50!

    The four existing "system" binary ("bint") comparison tests
    are at the same ROM addresses on all HP48/49/50;
    the additional tests you want simply don't exist
    (not even "unsupported but stable").

    C'est la vie, but some compensation exists
    in the fact that subsequent logic often has both
    a "do if true" and a "do if false" form
    (e.g. "case" vs. "NOTcase", IT vs. ?SKIP;
    for ITE, one can simply reverse the next two objects

    If anything, therefore, the fact that there exist four bint:bint comparisons,
    not just three, might mean that precious ROM space was simply wasted

    An excerpt from "Entries.all":

    03CA6 P HP:#0=
    03CC7 P HP:#0<>
    03CE4 P HP:#<
    03D19 P HP:#=
    03D4E P HP:#<>
    03D83 P HP:#>

    Same area in JKH's "Xref49.txt":

    HP48G HP49G ENTRY POINT NAME
    03CA6 03CA6 #0= ** 48/49 **
    03CC7 03CC7 #0<> ** 48/49 **
    03CE4 03CE4 #< ** 48/49 **
    03D19 03D19 #= ** 48/49 **
    03D4E 03D4E #<> ** 48/49 **
    03D83 03D83 #> ** 48/49 **

    http://www.hpcalc.org/search.php?query=entries.all
    http://www.hpcalc.org/search.php?query=xref49

    [r->] [OFF]

+ Reply to Thread