[GiNaC-list] Bug in numer_denom?
Ernst Moritz Hahn
emh at cs.uni-sb.de
Wed Nov 17 17:10:34 CET 2010
thanks for the answer!
> Is anything wrong? I don't know. Please, try to reduce example output
> you send to the mailing list as much as possible. Nobody wants to
> discussing output of excessive length.
OK, sorry about that. I assumed the normal form to be expanded, as I
thought the representation would be the same for equal rational
functions. When using GiNaC, I did not see an example where this was not
the case for smaller terms before.
More information about the GiNaC-list