New BetaROM available on HP web site
Keith Farmer
> Version B-1.17-2
How quickly 1.16 went by!
> Also we did find the unexpected warmstart while editing from time to
> time and it has been fixed...
Yay!
Jean-Yves Avenard
A new Beta is now available:
Version B-1.17-2
It should fix all the problems reported previously here and at
hp...@hpaco.aus.hp.com
Also we did find the unexpected warmstart while editing from time to
time and it has been fixed...
Available at:
http://www.hp.com/calculators/graphing/rom/beta.html
Plus, there is now a link from the official ROM page to the beta page.
What's new in the ROM appart from the bug fixes:
1- You can switch from real mode to complex mode and vice-versa by
pressing simultaneously LeftShift and [TOOL] (for the i)
2- VISITB is now available on LeftShift and simultaneously DownArrow.
LeftShift and DownArrow is VISIT
3- the entry point DECOMP$ now works exactly like the HP48 entry point.
That mean that << "" + >> is fully backward compatible with the HP48
Have fun, and thank you all for your patience.
Jean-Yves
Mario Mikocevic
: A new Beta is now available:
: Version B-1.17-2
[lossy compression]
: Have fun, and thank you all for your patience.
*yaicks*
I'll probably have to rebuild all format files for `sad` again ! :)
*grin* but that makes fun using it ...
: Jean-Yves
--
Mario Mikocevic (Mozgy)
mo...@zesoi.fer.hr
|/-\| lschk error : FUBR !
M Bunte
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> It should fix all the problems reported previously here and at
> hp...@hpaco.aus.hp.com
Mmhh. It seems to me that this version is more a "1.16.1" than
a beta version. Just because there are mostly real bug fixes than new
features. I did not download it yet but I am interested what is about
the filer bug? And I am interested who decides that a ROM version is not
a beta version? Just because I thought it took not very long / many
versions from beta to stable version and this version seems not to be so
different from the last beta in terms of errors.
A suggestion for the numbering of the ROMs: The minor version number of
Linux and its libs are even for "working" or "stable" versions and odd
for beta versions.
Bye, Matthias
PS: Excuse me all about the Linux-Upgrade program. I did not maintain it
for a while because I am moving. I never tried the additions.
At the moment my computer @home is dead so this year I will not have
the time to work on it anymore.
aven...@epita.fr
Hello.
A beta version become official when it has run succesfully all our
internal tests...
What do you mean with:
"and this version seems not to be
so different from the last beta in terms of errors."
Did you find any bugs in the 1.17-2 ??
Jean-Yves
In article <3860E2CC...@gmx.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Keith Farmer
Homer Simpson
Nah, unfortunately I think it's you (you made me install 1.17-2 to check
this!). After an error that clears the cache (VERSION CAT *), a call to CAT
takes about 2.48s (with the set of libraries I have, and according to my
chronometer), whereas CachedCAT pops in less than 1.20s (funny: it pops in
less than 1.00s when attached to the CAT key).
But it's true that the CAT, when its cache hasn't been erased, is much
faster than CachedCAT (under .50s). Might come from the fact that this cache
isn't a list of entries followed by the UserRPL CHOOSE, but a form that is
closer to what is needed just to display the choosebox.
Homer Simpson
http://zap.to/hsimpson
Joėl Bourquard
>
> Jean-Yves
I did - the following one is still there :
{ 1 2 3 } 1 * => { 1. 2. 3. } instead of { 1 2 3 }
--
Best Regards,
Joėl
____________________________
Numlock from XLR8 Digital Labs
http://fly.to/numlock icq#24242846
M Bunte
first of all: no I did not find any bugs in 1.17-2 because I cant
upload it (my computer is still dead).
I just thought it is more a bugfix than a new release because of the
remark "It should fix all the problems previously reported here...".
When I have the chance to test it and I find any errors I will report it
of course. How should you correct a bug which is nowhere reported???
OK but I still think that the 1.16 version is not that stable as I would
like a non-beta version expect to be.
Bye, Matthias
aven...@epita.fr wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> A beta version become official when it has run succesfully all our
> internal tests...
>
> What do you mean with:
> "and this version seems not to be
> so different from the last beta in terms of errors."
>
> Did you find any bugs in the 1.17-2 ??
>
> Jean-Yves
>