1 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:57:41 +0200, hw <hw@×××××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Am 22.08.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
5 |
> > On 22/08/2015 15:26, hw wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >> Hi, |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> I have the following in a perl script: |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> if ($a != $b) { |
13 |
> >> print "e: '$a', t: '$b'\n"; |
14 |
> >> } |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> That will print: |
18 |
> >> |
19 |
> >> e: '69.99', t: '69.99' |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> When I replace != with ne (if ($a ne $a) {), it doesn't print. |
23 |
> >> |
24 |
> >> |
25 |
> >> Is that a bug or a feature? And if it's a feature, what's the explanation? |
26 |
> >> |
27 |
> >> And how do you deal with comparisions of variables when you get randomly |
28 |
> >> either correct results or wrong ones? It's randomly because this |
29 |
> >> statement checks multiple values in the script, and 69.99 is the only |
30 |
> >> number showing up yet which isn't numerically equal to itself (but equal |
31 |
> >> to itself when compared as strings). |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > Computer languages have a much more exact idea of what equality means |
36 |
> > than you do. In your head (because you are human, not silicon) you are |
37 |
> > completely comfortable with taking "69.99" and treat8ing it as a string, |
38 |
> > or a number, or a mostly-rounded-off floating point number. |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> > The computer does not do it like that. To a computer, the same must be |
41 |
> > exactly the same. Two things a little bit different are completely |
42 |
> > different (or not equal). And perl has two different operators for |
43 |
> > (in)equality: |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > != does a numerical comparison. More on this below |
46 |
> > ne does a string comparison. When viewed as a bunch of characters, 69.99 |
47 |
> > and 69.99 are identical. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> When the value is numerically not 69.99 but something like 69.99001, |
50 |
> then printing the value should print 69.99001 rather than 69.99. |
51 |
|
52 |
To take your perl statement: |
53 |
perl -e 'printf("%34.32f\n", 23.33*3)' |
54 |
69.98999999999999488409230252727866 |
55 |
|
56 |
It doesnt print that strange value because it rounds it to something |
57 |
"more readable", as the value is known to be not as precise. |
58 |
|
59 |
> |
60 |
> perl -e 'print 1/3 . "\n";' prints 0.333333333333333 |
61 |
> |
62 |
> perl -e 'printf("%34.32f\n", 1/3);' prints |
63 |
> 0.33333333333333331482961625624739 |
64 |
> |
65 |
> perl -e 'print (((1/3 == 0.333333333333333) ? "equal" : "not equal") . |
66 |
> "\n");' prints "not equal" |
67 |
> |
68 |
> perl -e 'print (((1/3 == 0.0.33333333333333331482961625624739) ? "equal" |
69 |
> : "not equal") . "\n");' prints "Integer overflow in decimal number at |
70 |
> -e line 1." a couple times |
71 |
|
72 |
typo ;) |
73 |
1/3 == 0.0.333[...] |
74 |
Here it prints "equal". |
75 |
|
76 |
> |
77 |
> This is random, may it be predictable or not, and what's the integer here? |
78 |
> |
79 |
> > Now, your comparisons are NOT random. They are entirely predictable, as |
80 |
> > long as you know what is going on; you are running into floating point |
81 |
> > numbers. And as it turns out, computers never represent these things |
82 |
> > exactly (they are NOT integers). Even though they look identical |
83 |
> > on-screen, in RAM they will not be (this must be so for perl to do the |
84 |
> > print). Maybe they actually resolve to 69.990000001 and 69.99000000. You |
85 |
> > see them as close-as-dammit equal, perl sees them as entirely different. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> Why can't it print the number as it is, or at least as it is compared, |
88 |
> like it should? If it would, one could see at once what the problem is. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> > This is such as huge IT problem that many solutions have been proposed. |
91 |
> > You get classes like BigFloat that represent a floating point as an |
92 |
> > integer so that equality works, you can round the floats off before |
93 |
> > comparing them, or just make the things integers. |
94 |
> > |
95 |
> > The last one is nice: don't represent money as dollars and cents, |
96 |
> > represent it as cents or decicents and only divide by 100 (or 1000) when |
97 |
> > you finally get to display it. |
98 |
> |
99 |
> That would add quite a lot of complexity, and the problem should either |
100 |
> be handled transparently, or the value should be printed as the |
101 |
> software/computer sees it. It is a recipe for disaster when you tell |
102 |
> your computer to print something but it prints something else instead. |
103 |
> |
104 |
> > So how to fix your problem: you are doing what you shouldn't do - trying |
105 |
> > equality on floats. Turn them into integers, or round them off, or use |
106 |
> >> =/<= instead of != |
107 |
> |
108 |
> '=/<=' is not an operator in perl? |
109 |
> |