Here the the new implementation of calc-yank. I can submit a PATCH once the new definition is confirmed.
> then 5#12 appears on the stack.
. I also tested with the 2#111 and few other examples.
>
And perhaps some sort of message
>
if the entered radix isn't a number from 2 to 36 (the allowed radixes).
Is that check needed in calc-yank? If I enter an invalid radix like 37, I get the generic error "Bad format in yanked data".
> Also, you probably want to make sure that calc-yank behaves
>
appropriately when a number isn't being yanked.>
(Either applying the new base to all numbers in an _expression_ or>
disregarding the radix when the _expression_ being yanked isn't a pure> number, for example.)
Ah! I wasn't aware that yanking non-numbers was possible!
Based on the current code, as long as the user does not provide ANY prefix, calc-yank will work exactly as before. So the non-number yanking should also behave the same way.
Can you please provide feedback on how to incorporate that based on the below updated code?
Or can you provide some valid non-number examples for yanking?
==============================================================
(defun calc-yank (radix)
"Yank a value into the Calculator buffer.
Valid numeric prefixes for RADIX: 0, 2, 6, 8
No radix notation is prepended for any other numeric prefix.
If RADIX is 2, prepend \"2#\" - Binary.
If RADIX is 8, prepend \"8#\" - Octal.
If RADIX is 0, prepend \"10#\" - Decimal.
If RADIX is 6, prepend \"16#\" - Hexadecimal.
If RADIX is a non-nil list (created using \\[universal-argument]), the user
will be prompted to enter the radix in the minibuffer.
If RADIX is nil or if the yanked string already has a calc radix prefix, the
yanked string will be passed on directly to the Calculator buffer without any
alteration."
(interactive "P")
(calc-wrapper
(calc-pop-push-record-list
0 "yank"
(let* (radix-notation
(thing-raw (if (fboundp 'current-kill)
(current-kill 0 t)
(car kill-ring-yank-pointer)))
(thing (if (or (null radix)
(string-match-p "\\`[0-9]+#" thing-raw))
thing-raw
(progn
(setq radix-notation
(if (listp radix)
(concat (number-to-string
(read-number
"Set radix for yanked number (2-36): "))
"#")
(cond ((eq radix 2) "2#")
((eq radix 8) "8#")
((eq radix 0) "10#")
((eq radix 6) "16#")
(t (progn
(message
(concat "No radix is "
"prepended for prefix "
"value of %0d. Valid "
"numeric prefixes are "
"0, 2, 6, 8.")
radix)
"")))))
(concat radix-notation thing-raw)))))
(if (eq (car-safe calc-last-kill) thing)
(cdr calc-last-kill)
(if (stringp thing)
(let ((val (math-read-exprs (calc-clean-newlines thing))))
(if (eq (car-safe val) 'error)
(progn
(setq val (math-read-exprs thing))
(if (eq (car-safe val) 'error)
(error "Bad format in yanked data")
val))
val))))))))
--
Kaushal Modi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Jay Belanger <
jay.p.belanger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> With the patch, if the yanked number already has the radix prefix, there
> >> is an error. It might make more sense to have Calc do an appropriate
> >> conversion.
> > I did not try that case as I meant to use the prefix only when the copied number does
> > not have a calc-style prefix. But that's a valid point. If the copied number has
> > calc-style prefix, what should have a higher priority?
>
> If the copied number has a calc-style prefix, then the number should be
> interpreted in that base. I can be entered onto the stack in the new
> base. That's done now; if Calc is using base 5 and 2#111 is yanked,
> then 5#12 appears on the stack.
>
> > Either way, it will be easy with some string manipulation.
>
> You'd probably want Calc to do the conversion.
>
> >> It might make more sense to have calc-yank use the current Calc's current radix rather
> >> than a prefix radix.
> > I need some clarification for this point. Did you mean that if the
> > user has set the calc radix to hex by using "d6" and now if they yank
> > a number "1000" it gets yanked automatically as "16#1000".
>
> Yes; that's what I meant.
>
> > If yes, I believe it will cause a huge disturbance in the way people
> > might have already got used to yanking in calc.
>
> You are probably right. I would prefer the yanking to pay attention to
> the current Calc setting, but I really don't like changing age-old
> behavior. Your method is a good approach.
>
> >> Also, the number of radixes in the patch is less than Calc allows.
> > I assumed the use cases of only the common radixes used in programming. How about I
> > display a prompt for the user to enter any radix they like (I believe calc supports up
> > to radix 36) if the prefix is specifically '(4) ( a list prefix created when user uses
> > C-u specifically for prefix).
> >
> > So now, C-2 C-y will prefix the yanked number with "2#". But C-u C-y will show a prompt
> > where the user will enter radix. If the user entered 9, the prefix appended will be
> > "9#". Does this option sound fair?
>
> Yes; it sounds like a nice approach. And perhaps some sort of message
> if the entered radix isn't a number from 2 to 36 (the allowed radixes).
>
> Thanks again,
> Jay
>
>