Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- discussion:sidebar [2017/05/27 08:35]
pier4r [Please help with section Contributing to this wiki]
+++ discussion:sidebar [2017/12/16 06:04] (current)
pier4r [Chapter 6 - Command Reference]
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 I also think that a manual should be as helpful as possible in itself. Would be a bit frustrating to say "well, now that you can play around with the basics you want to program, right? Sorry, check this manual and this chapter, you don't find the information embedded here, wrong site". Instead existing information may be addressed as "also this and that document may give ideas how to approach RPL programming".  --- //[[pierqr.aiello@yahoo.it|pier4r]] 2017/05/02 13:33//
+----
+I hope I get some focus to finish reordering the second part of the chapter5 ASAP, sorry for the delay.
+About that, if one wants to show the reader an example how to use certain constructs in a program - it is just an excuse to pack together: newRPL experience, writing the wiki, exposing basic concepts - would it be accepted in the wiki? If yes, where? (To me it would be always yes, even if the wiki ends up being a sort of library of short programs)
+I was thinking something like: ''namespace::chapter::examples::date_or_title'' where the example is named after the date (or a title) and linked from the main chapter page. Actually the same could be done for further notes, advanced sections, etc.
+Or do we pack, at first, everything in one page and then we will refactor when the article grows too much? Like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size|wikipedia]] does?
+//Pier 2017/05/27//
+-----
+Any answer on this? Also Claudio I'm going to PM you my workflow on the 50g once I got through this period (I have to search for a relocation, so I won't be so active until August I think), I sent it already to smartin and he suggested me to show it to you. If it is not a problem I can post it here too.
+//Pier 2017 06 24 //
+----
+If I understand your concern, you are worried that the programming page may become too long because of code examples?  I would think a long page is ok since there is always the table of contents at the top for jumping to sections.  On the other hand, if you are going to include sample programs (more than just snippets) maybe having a separate page ('RPL Programs') under chapter 5 as well, which could be linked to from the 'basics of RPL' page would make sense.
+S.M. (2017-06-24)
+----
+(Sorry I'm not so active in those days. I hope to be back in August) \\
+The Idea is from wikipedia and other wikis on which I contributed. In general one may fill a page and when this gets big (around 50 thousand chars), can be split in other pages. But here I wanted to avoid making the manual part boring.
+Like: this and this command, the syntax is this at glance. Then for examples look there.
+I guess your idea of making another page with examples with link, makes sense.
+Pier (2017-07-23)
 ==== Chapter 6 - Command Reference ====
 For this chapter I was thinking it would be for newRPL commands only (not duplicating all commands in the 50g stock ROM).  Then, have the chapter organized by sections (categories), and newRPL commands listed alphabetically within the sections.  I'll throw up a change to the sidebar showing what I had in mind.  S. Martin
@@ Line 52: / Line 84: @@
 Ahh, if it's that automated, great!  S. Martin
+A list of commands (although without description at the start) could greatly help. Because one may assume that the commands have similarities with those in the userRPL standard lib. Otherwise a user is left, for what I know, with google searches or the autocomplete that may be tiresome. Hence, could we have a list of commands, updated every now and then? Many thanks and - in the case - merry Christmas!
+ --- //[[pierqr.aiello@yahoo.it|pier4r]] 2017/12/16 06:01//
 ==== Please help with section "Contributing to this wiki" ====
@@ Line 248: / Line 283: @@
 Ok great for the guideline, I hope to make as little confusion as possible. So let me see , LS<sup>hold</sup>-P, awesome. The sup tags with a button are pretty neat.
-Also for the timeline, In EU should be like 27/05/2017 but I learned using various OS that a proper way to name files after dates is the [[https://xkcd.com/1179/|following format]] . I hope I get some focus to finish reordering the second part of the chapter5 ASAP.
+Also for the timeline, In EU should be like 27/05/2017 but I learned using various OS that a proper way to name files after dates is the [[https://xkcd.com/1179/|following format]] .
-Oh about that, if one wants to show the reader an example how to use certain constructs in a program - it is just an excuse to pack together: newRPL experience, writing the wiki, exposing basic concepts - would it be accepted in the wiki? If yes, where? (To me it would be always yes, even if the wiki ends up being a sort of library of short programs)
+//Pier 2017/05/27//
-I was thinking something like: ''namespace::chapter::examples::date_or_title'' where the example is named after the date (or a title) and linked from the main chapter page. Actually the same could be done for further notes, advanced sections, etc.
+---
-Or do we pack, at first, everything in one page and then we will refactor when the article grows too much? Like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size|wikipedia]] does?
+I just realized that there seems two possible places where notation is defined and may produce confusion. [[manual:chapter1:notation|Notations and conventions]] and [[wiki:contributing|Contributing to the wiki]]. I would suggest that one of those takes the lead (notation) and the other gets cleaned from references about the formatting conventions. Because it is quite likely that one will be older than the other sooner or later and confusion arise.
-//Pier 2017/05/27//
+Oh another point, I just did the first pass conversion in the page [[manual:chapter2:cmdline|The Command Line]] (woah how much did you write! I feel ashamed, but slowly I'll do my part too) and the arrow shorten names are, well, not so memory friend for me except for UP. Can we just leave "left, right, up, down" ? I mean those are at maximum 5 puny chars to write and unlikely we write them in series like "alpha-hold-right-shift-add" (I'm making up). Of course for the moment I used LF, rn, up, dn but I feel strange using them. I mean sometimes for me it is easier to write 4 chars without much mental effort, than to remember "wait wast it LFT or LF? " Same for alpha rather than al. Backspace cannot be just DEL ? Just asking, otherwise I will try to comply as much as I can.
+//Pier 2017/06/04//
+----
+Ok, I updated the page on contributing to the wiki, so that key press conventions link back to the Notations and conventions section of chapter 1.
+S.M.  2017/06/05
+==== newRPL desktop version and manual ====
+I would assume that the desktop version of newRPL is a standalone version (that is, not emulating the arm processor), should the manual also cover it (because it may seem a 1:1 with the 50g, but it is not. For example the sd card image). I'm not sure whether is it intended to offer the newRPL desktop version as usable version (I would say yes, it is a great work).
+//Pier 2017/06/04//
+----
+I raised this same issue with C.L. about a month ago (thought I did that in our discussions here, but it seems it was through a HP Museum PM), since I suggested renaming the wiki to include '50g', since it won't really reflect other hardware, at least initially.  Here was C.L.'s response:
+> I'd say until I release newRPL on a different platform, there's no need to separate. Since the core works the same on any hardware, I think perhaps just reorganizing the chapter on keyboard would work, for example to have a section on the 50g keyboard and (hypothetically) a section on the Prime. But we can add that later without much trouble, for now let's assume newRPL on 50g is the only newRPL there is.
+S.M. 2017/06/05
+----
+Ok good to know. Indeed I can see the desktop version as 50g simulator (although I think it has no emulation layer). Just because typing there is not so immediate, it is really like the calculator, like pressing **Ctrl-+** to insert the program brackets and so on. Plus one (like me) could decide to first develop a stable version of an algorithm on the simulator and then pass to the calculator to minimize sd card transfers. Although as I asked on the MoHPC forum it is a bit unclear how can I pass just one object (a program) from the simulator to the sd. It seems I can save the entire state of the simulator, but nothing else.
+Pier 2017/06/05