[Scilab-users] tr: Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Pierre PERRICHON Pierre PERRICHON
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Scilab-users] tr: Re: CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10

Dear all

 

I think this representation (Federico) is the best one and the most relevant.
It is even better than the one proposed in Simulink.
I sincerely and strongly hope it will be adopted

Best regards
Pierre

 

Here is the last Samuel proposal, the top of the top

Very very nice idea !

That's professional and the better I've never seen !

 

 

Regards

> Message du 31/10/19 10:57

> De : "Pierre PERRICHON" <[hidden email]>
> A : "UsersmailinglistforScilab" <[hidden email]>
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10
>
>

>  

> Dear all, dear Samuel,

>  

> Many thanks for your gallery

> For me the better d

>  

>  

>  

> Message du 31/10/19 00:16
> De : "Samuel Gougeon" <[hidden email]>
> A : [hidden email]
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [Scilab-users] CLR design component is not clear in scilab 6.0.2 x64 W10
>
>
Le 30/10/2019 à 23:25, Federico Miyara a écrit :
>

> Samuel,
>
> In another e-mail that for some reason was not sent (and was completely deleted...) I mentioned this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols and standard ISO 80000-2, which in its clause 9, item 2.9.5

> > I have well received it, but in private, and ending with this reference, that is not public (to buy)
> (not sure that i can access to it from my University. Will try later).

> >
>

says that symbol for multiplication is either · or ×, and that they can be omitted if no misunderstanding is possible, and presents two examples of omission, one with space, such as a b, and one without space, such as ab (I suppose this is when one has been already using a and b or they are immediately explained).
>

> >
>

> > Thanks for this explicitness.
>


> I like the space more, it is more general and the only situation where it would be ambiguous is between numbers, such as 1.234 58 (since the thousand separator is a short space according to the ISO-BIPM GUM), but between numbers × is customary.
>

> > It would be very hard (and easily prone to errors, due to many specific cases, using parentheses, etc) to parse the input to detect all possible cases (1-char symbols, multiple-char symbols, literal numbers with or without exponential notations, real or complex, etc) and adapt the multiplication symbol accordingly.
>
> We might even define a "Ts.s=2" structure field in the context, and use it in the input. It works.
> ;-)
>
> A final possible gallery:
>

> >     

> >  

 

> >    

> >
>

> > Regards
>


>


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users