GNU bug report logs - #13580
24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: "Roland Winkler" <winkler <at> gnu.org>

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:26:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 24.2.92

Done: Jay Belanger <jay.p.belanger <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: jay.p.belanger <at> gmail.com
Cc: 13580 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Roland Winkler <winkler <at> gnu.org>
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 <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 13580 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> CC: jay.p.belanger <at> 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.




This bug report was last modified 12 years and 103 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.