Proper fractions?

> Hey, guys:
>
>     Any way to make the fraction class print itself out with its integer
> part separate from its fractional part. In other words, if I have
>
> 4/3
>
> (an "improper" fraction) can I make it print out as:
>
> 1 1/3
>
> ? I mean, I know I can write a routine that does this but it seemed odd
> to me that one doesn't exist.
>
>     (And who came up with that whole "improper" terminology? Some guys
> with small numerators, I'd bet....)
>
>     ===Blake===

> Can the system come pre-programmed with every possible wish of  
> every client for every domain?
>
> Propose your extensions, if use is sufficiently wide, they can  
> eventually be adopted in an official image.
>
> I'm not sure this one will. It makes sense to you because the  
> fraction denominator is small, a rather ideal case (the quotations  
> case i guess) which does have full generallity.
>
> Could you tell me what is 3 (39854788871587/281474976710656)?
>
> We have plenty over ways to write fractions (continuous fraction  
> expansion would be one) depending on the domain we are operating...
> Beside, since integerPart and fractionPart exists, extending is cheap.
>
> Nicolas
>
> Blake a écrit :
>> Hey, guys:
>>     Any way to make the fraction class print itself out with its  
>> integer part separate from its fractional part. In other words, if  
>> I have
>> 4/3
>> (an "improper" fraction) can I make it print out as:
>> 1 1/3
>> ? I mean, I know I can write a routine that does this but it  
>> seemed odd to me that one doesn't exist.
>>     (And who came up with that whole "improper" terminology? Some  
>> guys with small numerators, I'd bet....)
>>     ===Blake===
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

> This would work:
>
> | x |
> x := 4/3.
> '(', x integerPart printString, '+', x fractionPart printString, ')'
>
> and also would have the property of being self-evaluating just like  
> fractions did before.
>
> Though I agree with Nic that this is not what I'd want to see by  
> default.
>
> - Bert -
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 23:17 , nicolas cellier wrote:
>
>> Can the system come pre-programmed with every possible wish of  
>> every client for every domain?
>>
>> Propose your extensions, if use is sufficiently wide, they can  
>> eventually be adopted in an official image.
>>
>> I'm not sure this one will. It makes sense to you because the  
>> fraction denominator is small, a rather ideal case (the quotations  
>> case i guess) which does have full generallity.
>>
>> Could you tell me what is 3 (39854788871587/281474976710656)?
>>
>> We have plenty over ways to write fractions (continuous fraction  
>> expansion would be one) depending on the domain we are operating...
>> Beside, since integerPart and fractionPart exists, extending is  
>> cheap.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Blake a écrit :
>>> Hey, guys:
>>>     Any way to make the fraction class print itself out with its  
>>> integer part separate from its fractional part. In other words,  
>>> if I have
>>> 4/3
>>> (an "improper" fraction) can I make it print out as:
>>> 1 1/3
>>> ? I mean, I know I can write a routine that does this but it  
>>> seemed odd to me that one doesn't exist.
>>>     (And who came up with that whole "improper" terminology? Some  
>>> guys with small numerators, I'd bet....)
>>>     ===Blake===

> This would work:
>
> | x |
> x := 4/3.
> '(', x integerPart printString, '+', x fractionPart printString, ')'
>
> and also would have the property of being self-evaluating just like  
> fractions did before.
>
> Though I agree with Nic that this is not what I'd want to see by default.

> Blake, if you actually want to make this work in your image, you could  
> do this:
>
> Fraction>>printOn: aStream base: base
> | int |
> (int := self integerPart) = 0
> ifTrue: [aStream nextPut: $(.
> numerator printOn: aStream base: base.
> aStream nextPut: $/.
> denominator printOn: aStream base: base.
> aStream nextPut: $)]
> ifFalse: [aStream nextPut: $(.
> int printOn: aStream base: base.
> aStream nextPut: $+.
> self fractionPart printOn: aStream base: base.
> aStream nextPut: $)]
>
> (and delete Fraction>>printOn: which os redundant anyway)
>
> I can see how this would be helpful in debugging if you deal with  
> fractions a lot.

>> Blake, if you actually want to make this work in your image, you could  
>> do this:
>>
>> Fraction>>printOn: aStream base: base
>> | int |
>> (int := self integerPart) = 0
>> ifTrue: [aStream nextPut: $(.
>> numerator printOn: aStream base: base.
>> aStream nextPut: $/.
>> denominator printOn: aStream base: base.
>> aStream nextPut: $)]
>> ifFalse: [aStream nextPut: $(.
>> int printOn: aStream base: base.
>> aStream nextPut: $+.
>> self fractionPart printOn: aStream base: base.
>> aStream nextPut: $)]
>>
>> (and delete Fraction>>printOn: which os redundant anyway)
>>
>> I can see how this would be helpful in debugging if you deal with  
>> fractions a lot.
>
> That's cool but I'm basically using the Fractions class for quick  
> double-checks of math with fractions, so I sit down at whatever machine  
> is handy, pull up Squeak and...
>
> (Not that I'd object to printOn being changed or anything; it's just  
> overkill.)

> > Hey, guys:
> >
> >       (And who came up with that whole "improper" terminology? Some guys with
> > small numerators, I'd bet....)
> >
> >       ===Blake===
>
> I spent many years teaching remedial maths.  The whole
> proper/improper/mixed number concept messes with many kids learning
> arithmetic with fractions.
>
> As I recall,  proper fractions used to be written as a sum of partial
> fractions with numerator 1. For example:
>
> 3/8 = 1/4 + 1/8 so it was written as a proper fraction as
>
> 1  1
> -  -
> 4  8
>
> 2/5 = 1/4 + 1/10 + 1/20
>
> 1  1  1
> -  -  -
> 4  10 20
>
> 12/7 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/42
>
>   1  1  1
> 1 -  -  -  (a mixed number)
>   2  3  42
>
> If it was clear from context that a fraction was being discussed it would
> be written just by listing the denominators:
>
> 1 2 3 42
>
> This caused much confusion, is 2 4  3/4 or 9/4 (i.e. a mixed number or a
> proper fraction)?
>
> 2 2 4 was always 11/4 though (as the second 2 had to denote 1/2).
>
> A fraction written any other way (excepting continued fractions) was
> considered 'improper'.
>
> Later usage allowed for larger numerators.  Improper fractions were then
> fractions where the numerator was larger than the denominator, as we use
> today.  Proper fractions are always < 1.
>
> 1 3/4 as meaning 7/4 is called a mixed number, and use of mixed numbers is
> a cause for many errors,  as if written messily it can easily be read as
> 13/4 or even 1/14.
>
> To my mind a class that displays as a mixed number should be a subclass of
> Fraction, as the default of displaying a fraction as an improper fraction
> has no room for ambiguity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>