[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:49:34 +0200 |
> From: Jay Belanger <jay.p.belanger@gmail.com>
> Cc: 13580@debbugs.gnu.org
> CC: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:30:43 -0600
>
> > He is talking about this (see
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity):
>
> I've indicated that I know what dimensionless means
Sorry about that. I wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page
in this regard.
> Sure, but if a user asks Calc to work with m/m, the classic Calc
> behavior was for Calc to ask for a new unit, then basically ignore it
> and cancel the units. If the user put in "3 m/m", "New units: rad", the
> result would not be "3", not "3 rad". (Behind the scenes the new unit
> would be introduced but then disappear.) It ended up just simplifying
> the units. Asking for unused information seems like a bug. This was
> changed so that it wouldn't ask for the essentially unused information.
> Since Calc then acts without informing the user, I added information and
> allowed the user to treat the expression as unitless. That is the way I
> would like to use it. But it seems like there are two reasonable
> behaviors when the units cancel:
> (1) Simplify the expression. (The 24 branch behavior.)
> (2) Treat it like a unitless expression. (The trunk behavior.)
> Changing from the classic behavior to (1) was fixing a bug; when I heard
> a complaint about the lack of information that (1) provided, I changed
> to (2).
> Perhaps Calc should stick to (1), and let the user deal with the
> simplified expression.
>
> Or: What do you suggest?
I'd rather hope that Roland will suggest the alternative behavior he
would like to see instead.
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, (continued)
bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/07
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/07
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/07
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/07
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/02/08
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/08
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/08
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/08
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/09
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/09
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/09
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/09
- bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/09
bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Jay Belanger, 2013/02/08
Message not availablebug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Roland Winkler, 2013/02/07
bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/02/08