Terrific, Andy, thanks. I will definitely take a look.

On Friday, August 2, 2013 1:16:14 AM UTC-4, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
>
> I agree, which is why I wrote a patch for the ticket 
> http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1118
>
> (Depending on when you read this, dev.clojure.org may not be accessible 
> due to a recent DNS update made by the Clojure folks.  Wait a while and try 
> again.)
>
> It makes not only the change you suggest, but also another one to how hash 
> is calculated for BigDecimal values, so that hash is still consistent with 
> =.  Take a look at it and see if you think it is correct.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM, CGAT <genov...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>>   My understanding of == is that it is intended to establish numerical 
>> equivalence
>>   across types. But I think that basic contract fails with BigDecimal. 
>> For instance,
>>
>>   (== 1M 1.0M) ; => false
>>
>>   because the scale properties of these numbers are different. So then of 
>> course:
>>
>>   [(== 1 1N 1.0) (== 1 1N 1.0 1M) (== 1 1N 1.0 1.0M) (== 1 1.0 1N 1.0M)]
>>     ; => [true true true false]
>>   and
>>   [(== 1.0M 1.0) (== 1.0 1) (== 1 1N) (== 1N 1.0M)] 
>>     ; => [true true true false]
>>   
>>   I find your lack of transitivity (and commutativity) ... disturbing.
>>
>>   The issue is that there are two notions of equality for BigDecimal,
>>   equals and compareTo, where equals compares value *and* scale while
>>   compareTo compares numerically.
>>   
>>   The other numeric types use equals for equivalence, quite reasonably.
>>   But in class BigDecimalOps in clojure/lang/Numbers.java, I propose
>>   that
>>
>>     public boolean equiv(Number x, Number y){
>>       return toBigDecimal(x).equals(toBigDecimal(y));
>>     }
>>
>>   should be
>>      
>>     public boolean equiv(Number x, Number y){
>>       return toBigDecimal(x).compareTo(toBigDecimal(y)) == 0;
>>     }
>>
>>   to give the proper sense of equivalence.
>>
>>   I haven't had a chance yet to recompile with this change to test it,
>>   but we do have
>>
>>    (zero? (. 1.0M (compareTo 1M)))      ; => true
>>    (zero? (. 1.0000M (compareTo 1M)))   ; => true
>>    (zero? (. 1.000M (compareTo 1.0M)))  ; => true
>>      
>>   as desired.
>>
>>   Reactions?
>>
>>   Best,
>>
>>    Chris
>>
>>  -- 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with 
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to