Talk:TI-Basic 84 Programming
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Are Draw Instructions Part of the Programming Language?
Firstly, it seems that Draw Instructions are a separate entity from TI-BASIC. They are given a different section in the official TI-83 manual (not sure about other manuals), and are accessed through a different menu. In addition, the draw instructions are not defined in full, only the ClrDraw instructions. The others should be at lest given a mention, and possibly even explained in full. Redsoxcool (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New Info
This section will stay, but the material will come and go.
Moved conventions to TI-Basic Programming/Authors/Conventions.
TI-Basic Programming will be the bridge between the two versions, containing information on both books, but not including it. This discussion will stay, only because it's so much easier to communicate. In addition, perhaps we will add other pages to TI-Basic Programming, but for now, I don't know.
Syntaxs/Outputs/Examples all use TIB instead of bcode now! see the Conventions Page to see how!. --Jimmyatic 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geared towards older versions?
It appears that this book is geared towards older versions of TI-BASIC (namely, the 83/83+ genre). I was wondering how I should go about adding in stuff about later versions (I'm quite adept at the 89), so should I create separate modules for already existing content, make separate sections in existing modules, or something else? If you could get back to me on this somewhat quickly, I'd appreciate it so I can start writing ^_^ --Skizzerz 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Older versions, not necessarily (seeing how the TI-84 Plus isn't really that old), and I also believe that the TI-Basic for the TI-83 plus/TI-84 are the most common (though I only base this on experience). However, I really do believe that TI-Basic 89 would be very beneficial to Wikibooks, even though I am a TI-Basic 84 programmer. We could do either what you said, TI-Basic 83 Programming & TI-Basic 89 Programming or, to combine it into one book of TI-Basic, then like you said sub-modules for both 83 and 89. I think the first option would be the easiest.
- In addition, since they are both TI-Basic, perhaps they should have the same basic layout/syntaxes. If you think they should as well, perhaps we can work out some basics on this discussion. As for making new pages, if you agree with me on the first option, go ahead and start making TI-Basic 89 Programming and such pages. When I get back to making major changes to TI-Basic Programming, I’ll make the changes to make it a standard page describing TI-Basic & Provide links to TI-Basic 84 Programming and TI-Basic 89 Programming.
- Sorry for the length. If you don't agree, merely respond on what you don't and I should reply faster now that I know people are actually active here once again. Hope this helps!
- --Jimmyatic 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Should we talk format/organization? I think it would be a good idea to stick to a similar format. --Jimmyatic 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Format
The current format is basically introduce the command under the catagory (ie prompt is the command under the input page), give the keys to press to reach the command (see input page for example), explain the command, give the syntax, then give examples and output if needed. Like I said, for examples see the input/output pages. This is the format thus far established, but no one has opposed me yet. Thoughts on the subject?
[edit] Links
Links to subpages are currently using the template TI-Basic/CLink (Chapter links). the syntax is
{dogs
who wants
===Bolded New Words===
So far, everyone has stuck to the if it's a variable then it's in italics, and the if it's optional it's in square brackets, and that's good. What does everyone think of bolding the new functions/commands in the examples for the new functions/commands. As an example, the ''if''s in the examples for if would be bolded. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
==Navigation==
I went ahead and finished the template TIB. Now just add {{TIB|89}} and it will automattically add {{TIB|89}} Put the navigation you want to show up at [[TI-Basic 89 Programming/Navigation Include]], or just click the edit me link. So just put that at the top of each page, or where you think it would be best. As for the title of the navigation, I don't know if we need anything else other than Table of Contents, but if you think of something else, feel free... Should make our lives easier now...I'm gone for the weekend --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Table of Contents should be fine, but there cannot be headings on the Navigation Include sub-page. It screws up the section numbering of the page it gets included in, so use <big><big> Section name </big></big> instead. Other than that, it looks good. --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 20:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::There's nothing I can do about that - it's automattically done in the navigation template - I'll see if I can find a way around that!--[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:Now the question is where on each page to put it...Where does it look best? Bottom, top? --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm thinking bottom would be best, because you'd want to be able to jump elsewhere ''after'' you finish reading the current page. --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
== Functions vs Commands ==
Would If be considered a function or a command. I automatically assumed command, but is it a function. And if and <tt>if</tt> is a function, then everything is a function isn't it? I only ask because I've been using command for Disp and Text, practically everything, but would function be better? I considered functions to be like sin, cos, abs, and such. What about the rest of you?
--[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:I consider a function something requiring parenthesis (and any passed parameters inside said parenthesis), like <tt>cos(''#'')</tt>, and a command being something that doesn't, just needing a space to separate any passed parameters, like <tt>If ''test''</tt>. --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::But then what about Text() and Disp, they both output things to the screen, but one just doesn't require parentheses. That's where the line goes blurry because I consider both commands, though by the previous definition, Text would be a function...--[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Not owning an 83/84 (yet - need to get one soon because my 89 is disallowed on the ACT >_<), I have no idea what Text() does on it. Could you enlighten me? (By the way, I'm leaning towards function, but I don't know exactly WHAT it does. If it just output to the screen like Disp, then there really would be no point to it). --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Text() outputs to the graphing screen (smaller text, can have graphs showing) instead of the homescreen. My argument is what is the true difference between a command and a function, Disp displays different things and it takes arguments, but why isn't it a function. Parenthesis alone can't decide it. Your <tt>output</tt> takes arguments (the same as Ti84) but yours doesn't have Parenthesis. But they do the same thing (I think). Mine shouldn't be a function just because it has ().
:::::Yeah, output is only slightly different on the 89, in the fact that it puts it on the I/O screen (which the 84 and such don't have) and that it's passed parameters are in pixels, not characters. I do agree that it is more of a command than a function. Therefore, I'm proposing we take the "easy" way out:
:::::* A Command is something that you are telling the calculator to do, such as Disp and Text().
:::::* A Function is something that modifies the parameters passed into it in some way, such as cos() and string() (pretty much anything that can be represented in function-notation, even if it can't really be graphed as a function, e.g. string(x)="x").
::::: How's that as a decent distinguishing point between the two? --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::even further: A function returns a value? I think that works for the most part... --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::even further: A function returns a value based off the parameters passed into it in some way/shape/form (that way things like <tt>getMode()</tt> for the 89, which returns a list of what all the modes are set to, would be classified as a command and not a function). --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::but would that be a command -- is it really something you're telling the calculator to do?(using the previous definition of telling the calc....)?--[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider it telling the calc something to do, since you're telling it to fetch the mode settings and display them to you in list format. --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:The problem I have with that with that is that it returns a value. Are there any other comands that you return a value? --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::Well, if you read my description carefully, I said functions return a value ''based off the parameters passed into it''. Since it's output is independent of whatever arguments you attempt to pass into it, it would ''not'' fit in the definition of a function. Of course, if this is really a problem, we can just define it on a book-by-book basis (since we're both editing different books anyway, we can get away with it). --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, fine I'll give. Functions must have parameters and the return value must be something based on those parameters. But just for clarification, when you say "it's output is indepedent...", you are referring to it's return value, correct? Sorry to have dragged this on for so long. --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, I was referring to it's return value (what it outputs to the screen). --[[User:Skizzerz|Skizzerz]] <sup>[[User talk:Skizzerz|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Skizzerz|contribs]]</sup> 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::It outputs something to the screen? Oh, I always assumed you meant return as in sin(25) returns a value and then you can use this to do calculations and such, not directly outputting it to the screen. In that case I would have easily accepted it for a command --[[User:Jimmyatic|Jimmyatic]] 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
== Templates ==
Notice the change of the syntax of exceptions!
not
<pre>
|
this is an exception
but
|this is an exception
and now it will put up to ?five? stars depending how many levels you go:
|this is an exception |this is an another exception
This affects syntax, output and example.
[edit] Bcode
Currently to use syntax, output and example, we use bcode:command, but soon it will be modified to be used as TIB|Syntax. Do you think that's a good idea? Easier for us... No one else uses bcode, I would do the replacement within the current chapters. --Jimmyatic 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, it'd be less confusing as TIB/Syntax, that way we would have separate templates instead of needing to use #ifeq to distinguish between what is wanted. --Skizzerz talk - contribs 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be more convincing if I say I hate back slashes - oh so ugly. Oh well!--Jimmyatic 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- They aren't back slashes, they're forward slashes. It's how things are sub-paged are mediawiki... using a pipe character defines separate parameters, so many parser functions would then have to be used... --Skizzerz talk - contribs 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I know the rules, I just don't like what they look like. That's fine, I was just being facetious. --Jimmyatic 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- They aren't back slashes, they're forward slashes. It's how things are sub-paged are mediawiki... using a pipe character defines separate parameters, so many parser functions would then have to be used... --Skizzerz talk - contribs 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be more convincing if I say I hate back slashes - oh so ugly. Oh well!--Jimmyatic 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TI-89 Stuff
Input before prompt. You mentioned that input accepts a string first which allows it to not display "?:" but you didn't say where the ?: came from - you mention input before prompt. Should prompt be put first because it's a more simple way to input variables. And seeing as how we have pretty much declared that a function is something that should return a value, it should be conditional commands, conditionals, or some other witty phrase for conditional statements rather than 'Conditional Functions'. The TI84 version is the same way, but he created it before I had a chance to correct/change it.--Jimmyatic 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Conditionals works fine for me. And input is more commonly used than prompt, which is why I listed input first. As for where the ? came from, I am unsure of what you mean by this. --Skizzerz talk - contribs 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I must have read it wrong the first time. Sorry
[edit] TI-89 Programming/Input
It's not my call, but should there be a seperate section for functions in TI-89 Programming, perhaps explaining what functions are, how they're used, and how they're different from programs. Additionally, it seems a bit out of place to have functions in with input (it doesn't actually input anything, variables/values are more or less passed are they not?).
But then again, I don't know exactly how functions/programs work in TI-89 Basic, so maybe it's over my head in this case... --Jimmyatic (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
