Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

fix #22168, im*I+I should be shown as (1+1im)*I #22169

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 6, 2017
Merged

fix #22168, im*I+I should be shown as (1+1im)*I #22169

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
71c9725
fix #22168, `im*I+I` should be shown as `(1+1im)*I`
sunoru Jun 1, 2017
bd12d98
add test for `show(UniformScaling)`
sunoru Jun 1, 2017
026cede
check the number of terms in `show(::UniformScaling)`
sunoru Jun 1, 2017
273b121
fix the misuse of `|`
sunoru Jun 1, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions base/linalg/uniformscaling.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ eltype(::Type{UniformScaling{T}}) where {T} = T
ndims(J::UniformScaling) = 2
getindex(J::UniformScaling, i::Integer,j::Integer) = ifelse(i==j,J.λ,zero(J.λ))

show(io::IO, J::UniformScaling{T}) where {T<:Complex} = print(io, "$(typeof(J))\n($(J.λ))*I")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we do a check for the number of terms instead? Minor use case but this would still be wrong for quaternions.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's true. But if we do such a check we have to deal with strings. Don't know if it's OK to do so.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aren't we already dealing with strings? My idea was to add the parentheses if something like ismatch(r"[0-9]+ ?\+|\- ?[0-9]+", "$(J.λ)")

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I see. How about just checking r"\w+\s*\+|\-\s*\w+" as there must be + or - between terms if there are more than one term.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That was also my first version but I think negative reals become false positives here

julia> ismatch(r"\w+\s*\+|\-\s*\w+", "-1")
true

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah I'm sorry. It's because of the misuse of | and we should use r"\w+\s*[\+\-]\s*\w+".

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you perhaps add tests for the things that wasn't completely right with the first regexp.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know what common things can be wrong with the first regexp, but I believe there could be situations when users define a type that doesn't contain digit-[plus/minus]-digit pattern, such as something like 1i+2j. (The current displays of complex and quaternion numbers have something like 0+0im so the first regexp always works with them.)

show(io::IO, J::UniformScaling) = print(io, "$(typeof(J))\n$(J.λ)*I")
copy(J::UniformScaling) = UniformScaling(J.λ)

Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions test/linalg/uniformscaling.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ end
end

@test copy(UniformScaling(one(Float64))) == UniformScaling(one(Float64))
@test sprint(show,UniformScaling(one(Complex128))) == "UniformScaling{Complex{Float64}}\n(1.0 + 0.0im)*I"
@test sprint(show,UniformScaling(one(Float32))) == "UniformScaling{Float32}\n1.0*I"

λ = complex(randn(),randn())
Expand Down