Comment 3 for bug 275645

@jarnos

My hypothesis in the original post is that, when the calculator should close two levels of implicit grouping, it closes only one. Regardless of whether that is correct, there is a program, and it must follow some algorithm, so there must be a rule, whether or not we know it. If the rule was programmed deliberately, then it was by design.

Of course, whether by design or not, it is a flaw. @richwareham is just wondering whether or not this is a flaw in the TI-30 or HP-10C calculators that xcalc deliberately copies. In other words, was the bug introduced in those historical calculators, or was it introduced in xcalc? (And in the fomer case, then what should we do about it?)

This report is 7 years old, and I had forgotten ever making it, but the bug is still there in my current system! (Although to be fair, I'm still running Ubuntu 12.04.)