Hi,
I just stumbled across this bug related to the equality between fraction and float: In essence, the problem can be seen that by doing this, you get a ZeroDivide: x := 0.1. y := (1/10). x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ] The issue seems to come from the Float being turned to a Fraction, rather than the Fraction being turned into a Float: Fraction(Number)>>adaptToFloat: rcvr andCompare: selector "If I am involved in comparison with a Float, convert rcvr to a Fraction. This way, no bit is lost and comparison is exact." rcvr isFinite ifFalse: [ selector == #= ifTrue: [^false]. selector == #~= ifTrue: [^true]. rcvr isNaN ifTrue: [^ false]. (selector = #< or: [selector = #'<=']) ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive not]. (selector = #> or: [selector = #'>=']) ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive]. ^self error: 'unknow comparison selector']. ^ rcvr asTrueFraction perform: selector with: self Even if the comment says that the comparison is exact, to me this is a bug because it seems to fail doing that. What do you think? Cheers, Doru  www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Problem solving should be focused on describing the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." 
On 11/09/2017 06:15 AM, Tudor Girba
wrote:
Hi, I think exact comparison is the best thing to do here (even though ANSI says otherwise). And an exact comparison will answer false, because there is no float that is exactly equal to 1/10  it is an infinitely repeating decimal in binary. For consistency, though, it might be better to compute x  y by converting the Float to a Fraction rather than the other way around (though this would also contravene ANSI) since Fraction is the more general format (every Float can be represented exactly as a Fraction, but the reverse is not true). Regards, Martin 
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba2
Doru,
1/10 cannot be represented as Float without loss of precision. So even though (1/10) asFloat gives you 0.1, the reverse is not possible.
Floating point is a binary (as in base 2 representation), not a decimal (base 10) representation. Consider (1/8) asFloat asTrueFraction. which is reversible. x := 0.125. y := (1/8). x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ]. You can see that a bit in the binary representation view: Sven On 9 Nov 2017, at 15:15, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: 
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba2
Nope, not a bug. If you use Float, then you have to know that (x y) isZero and (x = y) are two different things. Example; Float infinity In your case you want to protect against (xy) isZero, so just do that. 20171109 15:15 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:

In reply to this post by Martin McClure2
20171109 15:34 GMT+01:00 Martin McClure <[hidden email]>:
The POV is that Float are potentially inexact (some quantity rounded to nearest representable Float). While Fraction are exact. If you mix exact quantity with inexact, then the result is inexact (thus Float). It does not hurt that this choice is CPU friendly.

In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
According to IEEE 754, the base of Pharo Float, *finite* values shall
behave like old plain arithmetic. On 20171109 15:36, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > Nope, not a bug. > > If you use Float, then you have to know that (x y) isZero and (x = y) > are two different things. > Example; Float infinity > > In your case you want to protect against (xy) isZero, so just do that. > > 20171109 15:15 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > Hi, > > I just stumbled across this bug related to the equality between > fraction and float: > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo > <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo> > > In essence, the problem can be seen that by doing this, you get a > ZeroDivide: > x := 0.1. > y := (1/10). > x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ] > > The issue seems to come from the Float being turned to a Fraction, > rather than the Fraction being turned into a Float: > > Fraction(Number)>>adaptToFloat: rcvr andCompare: selector > "If I am involved in comparison with a Float, convert rcvr to a > Fraction. This way, no bit is lost and comparison is exact." > > rcvr isFinite > ifFalse: [ > selector == #= ifTrue: [^false]. > selector == #~= ifTrue: [^true]. > rcvr isNaN ifTrue: [^ false]. > (selector = #< or: [selector = #'<=']) > ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive not]. > (selector = #> or: [selector = #'>=']) > ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive]. > ^self error: 'unknow comparison selector']. > > ^ *rcvr asTrueFraction perform: selector with: self* > > Even if the comment says that the comparison is exact, to me this is > a bug because it seems to fail doing that. What do you think? > > Cheers, > Doru > > >  > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> > www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com> > > "Problem solving should be focused on describing > the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." > > > > > > 
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Hi,
Thanks for the answer. The example I provided was for convenience. I still do not understand why it is wrong to expect 0.1 = (1/10) to be true. Doru > On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Nope, not a bug. > > If you use Float, then you have to know that (x y) isZero and (x = y) are two different things. > Example; Float infinity > > In your case you want to protect against (xy) isZero, so just do that. > > 20171109 15:15 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > I just stumbled across this bug related to the equality between fraction and float: > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo > > In essence, the problem can be seen that by doing this, you get a ZeroDivide: > x := 0.1. > y := (1/10). > x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ] > > The issue seems to come from the Float being turned to a Fraction, rather than the Fraction being turned into a Float: > > Fraction(Number)>>adaptToFloat: rcvr andCompare: selector > "If I am involved in comparison with a Float, convert rcvr to a > Fraction. This way, no bit is lost and comparison is exact." > > rcvr isFinite > ifFalse: [ > selector == #= ifTrue: [^false]. > selector == #~= ifTrue: [^true]. > rcvr isNaN ifTrue: [^ false]. > (selector = #< or: [selector = #'<=']) > ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive not]. > (selector = #> or: [selector = #'>=']) > ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive]. > ^self error: 'unknow comparison selector']. > > ^ rcvr asTrueFraction perform: selector with: self > > Even if the comment says that the comparison is exact, to me this is a bug because it seems to fail doing that. What do you think? > > Cheers, > Doru > > >  > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Problem solving should be focused on describing > the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." > > > > > >  www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "We are all great at making mistakes." 
In reply to this post by raffaello.giulietti
20171109 15:44 GMT+01:00 Raffaello Giulietti <[hidden email]>: According to IEEE 754, the base of Pharo Float, *finite* values shall behave like old plain arithmetic. This is out of context. There is no such thing as Fraction type covered by IEEE 754 standard. Anyway relying upon Float equality should allways be subject to extreme caution and examination For example, what do you expect with plain old arithmetic in mind: a := 0.1. b := 0.3  0.2. a = bThis will lead to (a  b) reciprocal = 3.602879701896397e16 If it is in a Graphics context, I'm not sure that it's the expected scale...

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba2
20171109 15:48 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, Because there are infinitely many different Fraction that would be "equal" to 0.1 then. The first effect is that you have a = b a = c b < c You are breaking the fact that you can sort these Numbers (are they Magnitude anymore?) You are breaking the fact that you can mix these Numbers as Dictionary keys (sometimes the dictionary would have 2 elements, sometimes 3, unpredictably).

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba2
ASN.1 encoding is a long standing encoding format and includes accepted encoding of Reals and Integers. I read this thread and decided to see what difference that ASN.1 Real encoding may report between this float and the fraction. It turns out it is the same, but not in an equality test with the fraction. That is due to conversion from Fraction to Float before encoding. Here is the results I found: ASN1OutputStream encode: (1/10). ASN1OutputStream encode: (0.1). bytes := #[9 9 128 201 12 204 204 204 204 204 205] This breaks down as in: ASN1InputStream decodeBytes: bytes. obj := (3602879701896397/36028797018963968) Which equals 0.1, but does not equal (1/10). Food for thought regarding ASN.1 encoding of Reals.  HH

To break down the ASN.1 encoding of 0.1 we have the following: sign * mantissa * (2 raisedTo: scalingFactor) * (base raisedTo: exponent). And in this case the values for 0.1 are as follows: self assert: sign = 1. self assert: mantissa = 3602879701896397. self assert: scalingFactor = 0. self assert: base = 2. self assert: exponent = 55. Just to close it up...  HH

In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
Note that this started a long time ago and comes up episodically A bit like a "marronnier" (in French, a subject that is treated periodically by newspapers and magazines)http://forum.world.st/ http://forum.world.st/BUG https://lists.gforge.inria.fr/ 20171109 15:55 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]>:

In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On 20171109 15:50, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> This is out of context. > There is no such thing as Fraction type covered by IEEE 754 standard. > Yes, I agree. But we should still strive to model arithmetic embracing the principle of least surprise. That's why in every arithmetic system I'm aware of (with the exception of very old CPUs dating back several decades), for finite x, y the x = y if and only if x  y = 0 property holds. Let's put it in another perspective: what's the usefulness of having x = y evaluate to false just to discover that x  y evaluates to 0, or the other way round? > Anyway relying upon Float equality should allways be subject to extreme > caution and examination > > For example, what do you expect with plain old arithmetic in mind: > > a := 0.1. > b := 0.3  0.2. > a = b > > This will lead to (a  b) reciprocal = 3.602879701896397e16 > If it is in a Graphics context, I'm not sure that it's the expected scale... > > a = b evaluates to false in this example, so no wonder (a  b) evaluates to a big number. But the example is not plain old arithmetic. Here, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 are just a shorthands to say "the Floats closest to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3" (if implemented correctly, like in Pharo as it seems). Every user of Floats should be fully aware of the implicit loss of precision that using Floats entails. So, using Floats to represent decimal numbers is the real culprit in this example, not the underlying Float arithmetic, which is very well defined from a mathematical point of view. In other words, using Floats to emulate decimal arithmetic will frustrate anybody because Floats work with limited precision binary arithmetic. Users wanting to engage in decimal arithmetic should simply not use Floats. (That's the reason for the addition of limited precision decimal arithmetic and numbers in the IEEE 7542008 standard.) That said, this does not mean we should give up useful properties like the one discussed above. Since we *can* ensure this property, we also should, in the spirit of the principle of least surprise. What's problematic in Pharo is that comparison works in one way while subtraction works in another way but, mathematically, these operations are essentially the same. So let's be consistent. In the case of mixedmode Float/Fraction operations, I personally prefer reducing the Fraction to a Float because other commercial Smalltalk implementations do so, so there would be less pain porting code to Pharo, perhaps attracting more Smalltalkers to Pharo. But the main point here, I repeat myself, is to be consistent and to have as much regularity as intrinsically possible. 
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On 20171109 15:55, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> > > 20171109 15:48 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the answer. The example I provided was for convenience. > > I still do not understand why it is wrong to expect 0.1 = (1/10) to > be true. > > Doru > > > Because there are infinitely many different Fraction that would be > "equal" to 0.1 then. > The first effect is that you have > > a = b > a = c > b < c > > You are breaking the fact that you can sort these Numbers (are they > Magnitude anymore?) > You are breaking the fact that you can mix these Numbers as Dictionary > keys (sometimes the dictionary would have 2 elements, sometimes 3, > unpredictably). > > Fractions are not reliable keys anyway: (Fraction numerator: 1 denominator: 3) = (Fraction numerator: 2 denominator: 6) evaluates to true while (Fraction numerator: 1 denominator: 3) hash = (Fraction numerator: 2 denominator: 6) hash evaluates to false 
20171109 18:11 GMT+01:00 Raffaello Giulietti <[hidden email]>: On 20171109 15:55, Nicolas Cellier wrote: You are violating the invariants described in class comment in this case, and thus missusing Fraction. So it's not anymore the problem of the library 
In reply to this post by raffaello.giulietti
20171109 18:02 GMT+01:00 Raffaello Giulietti <[hidden email]>: On 20171109 15:50, Nicolas Cellier wrote: Writing a = b with floating point is rarely a good idea, so asking about the context which could justify such approach makes sense IMO. But the example is not plain old arithmetic. Yes, it makes perfect sense! But precisely because you are aware that 0.1e0 is "the Float closest to 0.1" and not exactly 1/10, you should then not be surprised that they are not equal. So, using Floats to represent decimal numbers is the real culprit in this example, not the underlying Float arithmetic, which is very well defined from a mathematical point of view. In other words, using Floats to emulate decimal arithmetic will frustrate anybody because Floats work with limited precision binary arithmetic. Users wanting to engage in decimal arithmetic should simply not use Floats. (That's the reason for the addition of limited precision decimal arithmetic and numbers in the IEEE 7542008 standard.) What's problematic in Pharo is that comparison works in one way while subtraction works in another way but, mathematically, these operations are essentially the same. So let's be consistent. I agree that following assertion hold: self assert: a ~= b & a isFloat & b isFloat & a isFinite & b isFinite ==> (a  b) isZero not But
(1/10) is not a Float and there is no Float that can represent it
exactly, so you can simply not apply the rules of FloatingPoint on it. When you write (1/10)  0.1, you implicitely perform (1/10) asFloat  0.1. It is the rounding operation asFloat that made the operation inexact, so it's no more surprising than other floating point common sense In the case of mixedmode Float/Fraction operations, I personally prefer reducing the Fraction to a Float because other commercial Smalltalk implementations do so, so there would be less pain porting code to Pharo, perhaps attracting more Smalltalkers to Pharo. Mixed arithmetic is problematic, and from my experience mostly happens in graphics in Smalltalk. If
ever I would change something according to this principle (but I'm not
convinced it's necessary, it might lead to other strange side effects), maybe it would be how mixed arithmetic is performed... Something like exact difference like Martin suggested, then converting to nearest Float because result is inexact: ((1/10)  0.1 asFraction) asFloat This way, you would have a less surprising result in most cases. But i could craft a fraction such that the difference underflows, and the assertion a ~= b ==> (a  b) isZero not would still not hold. Is it really worth it? Will it be adopted in other dialects? But the main point here, I repeat myself, is to be consistent and to have as much regularity as intrinsically possible. I think we have as much as possible already. Non equality resolve more surprising behavior than it creates. It makes the implementation more mathematically consistent (understand preserving more properties). Tell me how you are going to sort these 3 numbers: {1.0 . 1<<60+1/(1<<60). 1<<61+1/(1<<61)} sort. tell me the expectation of: {1.0 . 1<<60+1/(1<<60). 1<<61+1/(1<<61)} asSet size. tell me why = is not a relation of equivalence anymore (not associative) 
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba2
Because by definition, a floating point value is of the form
+/ 2^e * m for some 0 <= m < M, and e in some range of values (some positive, some negative). There are other special cases that don't matter here, such as NaN, INF, denormals, etc. So now set up the equality you want. Since it's positive we can skip the sign. Hence, 2^e * m = 1/10 Or, rather, 10 * 2^e * m = 1 The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic shows this is impossible. Andres. On 11/9/17 6:48 , Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the answer. The example I provided was for convenience. > > I still do not understand why it is wrong to expect 0.1 = (1/10) to be true. > > Doru > > >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Nope, not a bug. >> >> If you use Float, then you have to know that (x y) isZero and (x = y) are two different things. >> Example; Float infinity >> >> In your case you want to protect against (xy) isZero, so just do that. >> >> 20171109 15:15 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: >> Hi, >> >> I just stumbled across this bug related to the equality between fraction and float: >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo >> >> In essence, the problem can be seen that by doing this, you get a ZeroDivide: >> x := 0.1. >> y := (1/10). >> x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ] >> >> The issue seems to come from the Float being turned to a Fraction, rather than the Fraction being turned into a Float: >> >> Fraction(Number)>>adaptToFloat: rcvr andCompare: selector >> "If I am involved in comparison with a Float, convert rcvr to a >> Fraction. This way, no bit is lost and comparison is exact." >> >> rcvr isFinite >> ifFalse: [ >> selector == #= ifTrue: [^false]. >> selector == #~= ifTrue: [^true]. >> rcvr isNaN ifTrue: [^ false]. >> (selector = #< or: [selector = #'<=']) >> ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive not]. >> (selector = #> or: [selector = #'>=']) >> ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive]. >> ^self error: 'unknow comparison selector']. >> >> ^ rcvr asTrueFraction perform: selector with: self >> >> Even if the comment says that the comparison is exact, to me this is a bug because it seems to fail doing that. What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >>  >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Problem solving should be focused on describing >> the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." >> >> >> >> >> >> > >  > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "We are all great at making mistakes." > > > > > > > > > > . > 
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On 20171109 19:04, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> > > 20171109 18:02 GMT+01:00 Raffaello Giulietti > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > > > > Anyway relying upon Float equality should allways be subject to > extreme caution and examination > > For example, what do you expect with plain old arithmetic in mind: > > a := 0.1. > b := 0.3  0.2. > a = b > > This will lead to (a  b) reciprocal = 3.602879701896397e16 > If it is in a Graphics context, I'm not sure that it's the > expected scale... > > > > a = b evaluates to false in this example, so no wonder (a  b) > evaluates to a big number. > > > Writing a = b with floating point is rarely a good idea, so asking about > the context which could justify such approach makes sense IMO. > Simple contexts, like the one which is the subject of this trail, are the one we should strive at because they are the ones most likely used in daytoday working. Having useful properties and regularity for simple cases might perhaps cover 99% of the everyday usages (just a dishonestly biased estimate ;) ) Complex contexts, with heavy arithmetic, are best dealt by numericists when Floats are involved, or with unlimited precision numbers like Fractions by other programmers. > But the example is not plain old arithmetic. > > Here, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 are just a shorthands to say "the Floats closest > to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3" (if implemented correctly, like in Pharo as it > seems). Every user of Floats should be fully aware of the implicit > loss of precision that using Floats entails. > > > Yes, it makes perfect sense! > But precisely because you are aware that 0.1e0 is "the Float closest to > 0.1" and not exactly 1/10, you should then not be surprised that they > are not equal. > Indeed, I'm not surprised. But then 0.1  (1/10) shall not evaluate to 0. If it evaluates to 0, then the numbers shall compare as being equal. The surprise lies in the inconsistency between the comparison and the subtraction, not in the isolated operations. > > I agree that following assertion hold: > self assert: a ~= b & a isFloat & b isFloat & a isFinite & b > isFinite ==> (a  b) isZero not > The arrow ==> is bidirectional even for finite Floats: self assert: (a  b) isZero not & a isFloat & b isFloat & a isFinite & b isFinite ==> a ~= b > But (1/10) is not a Float and there is no Float that can represent it > exactly, so you can simply not apply the rules of FloatingPoint on it. > > When you write (1/10)  0.1, you implicitely perform (1/10) asFloat  0.1. > It is the rounding operation asFloat that made the operation inexact, so > it's no more surprising than other floating point common sense See above my observation about what I consider surprising. > > > In the case of mixedmode Float/Fraction operations, I personally > prefer reducing the Fraction to a Float because other commercial > Smalltalk implementations do so, so there would be less pain porting > code to Pharo, perhaps attracting more Smalltalkers to Pharo. > > Mixed arithmetic is problematic, and from my experience mostly happens > in graphics in Smalltalk. > > If ever I would change something according to this principle (but I'm > not convinced it's necessary, it might lead to other strange side effects), > maybe it would be how mixed arithmetic is performed... > Something like exact difference like Martin suggested, then converting > to nearest Float because result is inexact: > ((1/10)  0.1 asFraction) asFloat > > This way, you would have a less surprising result in most cases. > But i could craft a fraction such that the difference underflows, and > the assertion a ~= b ==> (a  b) isZero not would still not hold. > Is it really worth it? > Will it be adopted in other dialects? > > As an alternative, the Float>>asFraction method could return the Fraction with the smallest denominator that would convert to the receiver by the Fraction>>asFloat method. So, 0.1 asFraction would return 1/10 rather than the beefy Fraction it currently returns. To return the beast, one would have to intentionally invoke asExactFraction or something similar. This might cause less surprising behavior. But I have to think more. > But the main point here, I repeat myself, is to be consistent and to > have as much regularity as intrinsically possible. > > > > I think we have as much as possible already. > Non equality resolve more surprising behavior than it creates. > It makes the implementation more mathematically consistent (understand > preserving more properties). > Tell me how you are going to sort these 3 numbers: > > {1.0 . 1<<60+1/(1<<60). 1<<61+1/(1<<61)} sort. > > tell me the expectation of: > > {1.0 . 1<<60+1/(1<<60). 1<<61+1/(1<<61)} asSet size. > A clearly stated rule, consistently applied and known to everybody, helps. In presence of heterogeneous numbers, the rule should state the common denominator, so to say. Hence, the numbers involved in mixedmode arithmetic are either all converted to one representation or all to the other: whether they are compared or added, subtracted or divided, etc. One rule for mixedmode conversions, not two. > tell me why = is not a relation of equivalence anymore (not associative) > > Ensuring that equality is an equivalence is always a problem when the entities involved are of different nature, like here. This is not a new problem and not inherent in numbers. (Logicians and set theorists would have much to tell.) Even comparing Points and ColoredPoints is problematic, so I have no final answer. In Smalltalk, furthermore, implementing equality makes it necessary to (publicly) expose much more internal details about an object than in other environments. 
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
There is nice little Chapter about Float based on previous discussions
with Nicolas :) In deep into pharo. Stef On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > 20171109 15:44 GMT+01:00 Raffaello Giulietti > <[hidden email]>: >> >> According to IEEE 754, the base of Pharo Float, *finite* values shall >> behave like old plain arithmetic. >> >> > This is out of context. > There is no such thing as Fraction type covered by IEEE 754 standard. > > Anyway relying upon Float equality should allways be subject to extreme > caution and examination > > For example, what do you expect with plain old arithmetic in mind: > > a := 0.1. > b := 0.3  0.2. > a = b > > This will lead to (a  b) reciprocal = 3.602879701896397e16 > If it is in a Graphics context, I'm not sure that it's the expected scale... > >> >> >> On 20171109 15:36, Nicolas Cellier wrote: >>> >>> Nope, not a bug. >>> >>> If you use Float, then you have to know that (x y) isZero and (x = y) >>> are two different things. >>> Example; Float infinity >>> >>> In your case you want to protect against (xy) isZero, so just do that. >>> >>> 20171109 15:15 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just stumbled across this bug related to the equality between >>> fraction and float: >>> >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo >>> >>> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20488/xyiffxy0isnotpreservedinPharo> >>> >>> In essence, the problem can be seen that by doing this, you get a >>> ZeroDivide: >>> x := 0.1. >>> y := (1/10). >>> x = y ifFalse: [ 1 / (x  y) ] >>> >>> The issue seems to come from the Float being turned to a Fraction, >>> rather than the Fraction being turned into a Float: >>> >>> Fraction(Number)>>adaptToFloat: rcvr andCompare: selector >>> "If I am involved in comparison with a Float, convert rcvr to a >>> Fraction. This way, no bit is lost and comparison is exact." >>> >>> rcvr isFinite >>> ifFalse: [ >>> selector == #= ifTrue: [^false]. >>> selector == #~= ifTrue: [^true]. >>> rcvr isNaN ifTrue: [^ false]. >>> (selector = #< or: [selector = #'<=']) >>> ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive not]. >>> (selector = #> or: [selector = #'>=']) >>> ifTrue: [^ rcvr positive]. >>> ^self error: 'unknow comparison selector']. >>> >>> ^ *rcvr asTrueFraction perform: selector with: self* >>> >>> Even if the comment says that the comparison is exact, to me this is >>> a bug because it seems to fail doing that. What do you think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>  >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >>> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com> >>> >>> "Problem solving should be focused on describing >>> the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > 
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Nicolas Cellier
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Note that this started a long time ago and comes up episodically > http://forum.world.st/FractionequalityandFloatinfinityproblemtd48323.html > http://forum.world.st/BUGEqualityshouldbetransitivetc1404335.html > https://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharoproject/2009July/010496.html > > A bit like a "marronnier" (in French, a subject that is treated periodically > by newspapers and magazines) Hi nicolas except that now we could a chapter describing some of the answers :) 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 