Complex#rationalize and to_r with approximate zeros
Currently, Complex#rationalize and Complex#to_r raise a RangeError if the imaginary part is nonzero or is a Float. Note that a BigDecimal(0) is accepted, though:
Complex(1, 0).to_r # => Rational(1,1) Complex(1, BigDecimal("0.0")).to_r # => Rational(1,1) Complex(1, 0.0).to_r # => RangeError
This is inconsistent. I recommend not raising an error for 0.0 (Float or BigDecimal). Any objection?
Updated by mrkn (Kenta Murata) about 10 years ago
- Assignee set to mrkn (Kenta Murata)
0.0 doesn't exactly represent zero. It may be 0.0+-10.0**(Float::MIN_10_EXP-17).
BigDecimal(0) doesn't exactly represent zero, too.
I believe this issue should be resolved by introducing Numeric#exact? and/or Numeric#inexact? methods.
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 2 years ago
As Numeric#exact? has been rejected, and BigDecimal is not a core class, I'm not sure what to do about this issue. mrkn (Kenta Murata) seems to recommend RangeError for
Complex(1, BigDecimal("0.0")).to_r (the same as with
Complex(1, 0.0).to_r). I think the bigdecimal library would have to override Kernel#Complex for that behavior. Would that be considered acceptable?
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) almost 2 years ago
We discussed #5321 at the dev-meeting. Whether a value is exact or inexact, is not decidable based on a class. For example, a literal
0.0 may be considered as precise and exact. But, if the same value is gained from an inaccurate calculation, it may be considered as inexact.
In regard to this paricular issue, Naruse pointed out that we already have
Float#to_r. So I think that it is reasonable that
Complex(1, 0.0).to_r returns
Rational(1, 1) instead of RangeError.