10 Nov
2005
10 Nov
'05
11:02 p.m.
Jens Vollinga wrote:
Chris Dams wrote:
I found out that 1.has(0) returns true. Iteresting ;-o. A patch is attached.
This made me wonder about 2.has(2*I). It returns true. Is this really the idea?
I am not sure, but I don't think so.
Definitely not.
I modified your patch slighty to cover that case too (and put it into CVS).
That patch appears to meet up with the comment whereas the original code didn't. ;-) Great! -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>