Re: [GiNaC-list] Bug in numer_denom?

Hi Richard, thanks for the answer!

Is anything wrong? I don't know. Please, try to reduce example output you send to the mailing list as much as possible. Nobody wants to discussing output of excessive length.

OK, sorry about that. I assumed the normal form to be expanded, as I thought the representation would be the same for equal rational functions. When using GiNaC, I did not see an example where this was not the case for smaller terms before. Regards, Moritz