From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!stolaf!minn-ua!jlw Newsgroups: net.misc Title: Re: HP Calculator Stack Depth - (nf) Article-I.D.: minn-ua.265 Posted: Thu Jan 6 20:57:10 1983 Received: Fri Jan 7 06:14:08 1983 ~v Hmmm. Looks like I'm on my own. The fundamental reason for not having more than 4 registers in the stack is that it wouldn't save you any keystrokes. I paraphrase from something I picked up at the bookstore here where I bought my HP-15C and HP-16C: PPC Journal, Special Issue B, 1979. Given the problem 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 using a four-level stack the solution is 1.4 E^ 1.2 y^x 1.6 x<>y y^x 1.8 x<>y y^x 2 x<>y y^x which is a 13 step solution, counting quatities as signle steps. A five-level stack gives 2 E^ 1.8 E^ 1.6 E^ 1.4 E^ 1.2 y^x y^x y^x y^x which is also 13 entries. Hence, no advantage. If you need a larger stack for intermediate results, use the addressable storage regsiters; that's what they are there for. I think I'd have trouble keeping track of where everything in a large stack was, and end up starting over more than once. The observant among you may wonder what a 1979 PPC Journal was doing in a bookstore selling 1982 calculators. I wonder as well. Those of you who are too observant noticed that 'single' was misspelled. A thousand pardons for that transgression of netiquette. Jeff Woolsey University Computer Center ...!stolaf!minn-ua!jlw ...!pur-ee!minn-ua!jlw