Strange behaviour in calc

Strange behaviour in calc

[Neon Absentius]

Hello

in GNU Emacs 21.4.1 on Debian testing/unstable using the debian calc package 
when I give the "algebraic" formula

4+6/10 

it evaluates to 23:5 which I think is the right answer since the
standard convention is that division has precedence over addition.
How ever on GNU Emacs 22.0.51.1 (multi-tty) the same algebraic
expession evaluates to 1, which means that addition is evaluated
before the division.  Is this the intended behaviour or is this a bug?
Even if this is the intended behaviour I would still suggest that it
*is* a bug!



-- 
Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so
this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.
     -- Barbara Bush, about the refuges from New Orleans.

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Jay Belanger]

Neon Absentius <absent@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

> Hello
>
> in GNU Emacs 21.4.1 on Debian testing/unstable using the debian calc package 
> when I give the "algebraic" formula
>
> 4+6/10 
>
> it evaluates to 23:5 which I think is the right answer since the
> standard convention is that division has precedence over addition.
> How ever on GNU Emacs 22.0.51.1 (multi-tty) the same algebraic
> expession evaluates to 1, which means that addition is evaluated
> before the division.  Is this the intended behaviour or is this a bug?
> Even if this is the intended behaviour I would still suggest that it
> *is* a bug!

I agree; except I can't reproduce it.
In cvs Emacs, 4+6/10 gives me 4.6 or (in fraction mode) 23:5.
What are your calc settings?

Jay

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Neon Absentius]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:30:30PM -0500, Jay Belanger wrote:
> What are your calc settings?

The modeline says:
   
      -uu7:%*-F1  Calc: 12 Deg Scalar LaTeX

It is worth adding that after your question I checked the 21.4.1 with
the Tex mode and it does the same mistake.  So I guess this is a bug
in Tex mode which was inherited by the Latex mode.

-- 
Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so
this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.
     -- Barbara Bush, about the refuges from New Orleans.

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Neon Absentius <absent@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

>      -- Barbara Bush, about the refuges from New Orleans.

probably you mean to say "refugees" here.

thi

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Neon Absentius]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:23:10PM +0200, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> Neon Absentius <absent@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> 
> >      -- Barbara Bush, about the refuges from New Orleans.
> 
> probably you mean to say "refugees" here.

Ooops! 

thanks.  On the other hand, they are underprivileged anyway ...

> 
> thi

-- 
Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so
this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.
     -- Barbara Bush, about the refugees from New Orleans.

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Neon Absentius <absent@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

> On the other hand, they are underprivileged anyway ...

under and over, the zero yet as one.
inverted pride unfinished yet begun.
let them eat cake
s/....$/burger and shake/
water behind us, ahead only sun!

first, fix the hemisphere: southern "neighbors".
next, stop the domino: 2 xu labors.
close round the middle
5e7 dead, who will quibble?
"harmonize now!": no coercion, just favors.

thi

Re: Strange behaviour in calc

[Jay Belanger]

Neon Absentius <absent@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
...
> It is worth adding that after your question I checked the 21.4.1 with
> the Tex mode and it does the same mistake.  So I guess this is a bug
> in Tex mode which was inherited by the Latex mode.

Yes; that's it.
In TeX mode, the precedence of \over is less than that of + and -
(that ensures that things like {a+b \over c + d} are parsed correctly),
and / was given the same precedence as \over.
The precedence of / has been raised in cvs Emacs, so it should work
correctly now.

Jay