Hi,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
A patch that solves the problem is attached: it passes `make check'
Ok, but there really isn't any output checking. Originally, there was. But then we dropped it because the low degree of predictablility in canonical ordering made it a burden to maintain.
Now, that we have an input parser, I fancy an idea: We can randomly create all sorts of rational numbers with weird exponents, rational complex bases etc. and build an ex from it. This has then been run through the anonymous evaluator and we can print it into an ostringstream. Then we can apply .to_str() on it, and have the expression be parsed again and compared with the original. If there are remaining bugs in either the parser or (more likely) output, this should help shake them out. Having this in the default regression tests would guard us against future failures, which are not unlikely to happen, a point to be proven soon...
and fixes also the related bugexemplified by the following excerpt from a ginsh session (1.0.4):
(-I)^e;
(I)^e
Applied, thanks. This one seems to have crept in in version 0.8.1. Point proven. :-)
What is your advice? Given that we cannot put up with that bugs, should we install the patched version on all our machines or should we wait for 1.0.5? Translation: do you plan to release 1.0.5 RSN? ;-)
Maybe next week.
Regards -richy.