Hello, I don't see any reactions on my previous post "same problem again plus a few others". Did noone read it? It contains *three* fixes of what I think are bugs. Don't the devellopers care that a^(-1/2) sometimes gets printed in C-source as if it were a^(1/2)? Looking forward to hearing anything! Greetings, Chris Dams
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Chris Dams wrote:
I don't see any reactions on my previous post "same problem again plus a few others". Did noone read it? It contains *three* fixes of what I think are bugs. Don't the devellopers care that a^(-1/2) sometimes gets printed in C-source as if it were a^(1/2)? Looking forward to hearing anything!
Ohhh, thanks for U.r keen interest! ;-) Yepp, we R. still alive. 3 weeks ago your patch went into both branches, in rather unmodified form. It will be in the next release. Thanks for having submitted it. HTH -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <Richard.Kreckel@GiNaC.DE> <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>
Hello, On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
Yepp, we R. still alive. 3 weeks ago your patch went into both branches, in rather unmodified form. It will be in the next release. Thanks for having submitted it.
Ah, now I see the file mul.cpp indeed changed. I was looking at add.cpp and did not see it changing. This, however, means that you did not use my suggestion for the file add.cpp. I did not put it in the patch because it was only one line. One of my previous posts was about a problem when printing cln-output. The problem was that there was no plus sign before a cl_N-constructor in the output. After this was fixed for the coefficients, I discovered that the numeric term of an add suffers from the same problem. Therefore I think the line if (overall_coeff.info(info_flags::positive)) in the file add.cpp should be if (overall_coeff.info(info_flags::positive) || is_a<print_csrc_cl_N>(c)) I think this should still be changed. Greetings, Chris Dams
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Chris Dams wrote: [...]
Ah, now I see the file mul.cpp indeed changed. I was looking at add.cpp and did not see it changing. This, however, means that you did not use my suggestion for the file add.cpp. I did not put it in the patch because it was only one line. One of my previous posts was about a problem when printing cln-output. The problem was that there was no plus sign before a cl_N-constructor in the output. After this was fixed for the coefficients, I discovered that the numeric term of an add suffers from the same problem. Therefore I think the line
if (overall_coeff.info(info_flags::positive))
in the file add.cpp should be
if (overall_coeff.info(info_flags::positive) || is_a<print_csrc_cl_N>(c))
I think this should still be changed.
Right. Thanks for catching this! Cheers -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <Richard.Kreckel@GiNaC.DE> <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>
participants (2)
-
Chris Dams
-
Richard B. Kreckel