[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Gabriel Barrantes]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Gabriel Barrantes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CONFIRMED   |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
 CC||gabriel.barrantes.dev@outlo
   ||ok.com

--- Comment #11 from Gabriel Barrantes  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 447347 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Syam]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

--- Comment #10 from Syam  ---
There's definitely a bug here. 
Test case: 
In 'numeral system mode', select 'Bin' for binary.
Try pasting a string like "5". It fails with 'nan'. This indicates that the
pasted number is expected to be in binary. In that case, why is a number like
"011" interpreted in octal? If that was the logic, then "5" too should've been
interpreted as decimal and converted to binary.

In short, in binary mode, the pasted string is expected to be a binary number
(since "5" is not accepted). So treating "011" as octal is definitely a bug.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[bugzilla_noreply]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

--- Comment #9 from guimarcalsi...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Evan Teran from comment #3)
> Yea, this one is tough because I can see both implementations as being
> reasonable. As a programmer, I would expect a value of 0777 to be
> interpreted as octal no matter what ... because it is an octal number by
> convention.

I wonder if Kcalc should try to guess what type of number was inputted at all.
Hidden behavior like that can be quite confusing. By default, I would rather
have to manually select the type of number I'm inputting every time over
possibly committing a mistake because Kcalc guessed the number format wrong.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[bugzilla_noreply]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

guimarcalsi...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugs.kde.org/show_b
   ||ug.cgi?id=465200

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Christoph Feck]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Christoph Feck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||trufano...@gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Christoph Feck  ---
*** Bug 410346 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Christoph Feck]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Christoph Feck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||get.so...@gmail.com

--- Comment #7 from Christoph Feck  ---
*** Bug 407009 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Andrew Crouthamel]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Andrew Crouthamel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Ever confirmed|0   |1
   Keywords||investigated, triaged
 CC||andrew.crouthamel@kdemail.n
   ||et
 Status|REPORTED|CONFIRMED

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Crouthamel  ---
Marking this confirmed, I can reproduce and agree at least an option should be
present. As a network engineer, I would expect it to behave in binary, and
assume leading zeros.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Julian Schraner]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Julian Schraner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@xyquadrat.ch

--- Comment #5 from Julian Schraner  ---
Related bug: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398849
It might be good if both cases could be handled at the same time.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[martonmiklos]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

martonmiklos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||martonmiklosq...@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from martonmiklos  ---
(In reply to Evan Teran from comment #3)
> Yea, this one is tough because I can see both implementations as being
> reasonable. As a programmer, I would expect a value of 0777 to be
> interpreted as octal no matter what ... because it is an octal number by
> convention.

The 0777 and similar cases could be easily handled: it contains different
characters than 0-s and 1-s.

I would propose the following:
- If the calculator is in binary mode
- And the pasted string contains only 0-s and 1-s
- Then the pasted string should be interpreted as binary number

If I got thumbs up for this I will came up with a patch.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Evan Teran]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

--- Comment #3 from Evan Teran  ---
Yea, this one is tough because I can see both implementations as being
reasonable. As a programmer, I would expect a value of 0777 to be interpreted
as octal no matter what ... because it is an octal number by convention.

But you may a good point, and not everyone is a programmer. Perhaps a
compromise would be to prefer using the current mode, but if that produces an
invalid number (like 0x12345 in decimal mode), then fallback on the current
behavior. I dunno, I'm not sure if I love that either :-/

Certainly, it is possible to make this a configurable option. So maybe that's
reasonable.

I'd been a while since I have been terribly active in kcalc, so bear with me
while I get a bit reacquainted with the source :-).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Christoph Feck]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

Christoph Feck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|critical|normal

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[radius . soukroma]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

--- Comment #2 from radius.soukr...@gmail.com  ---
Hi,
thanks for answer, but it is really bad behavior. I have tested windows calc
-GOOD and galculator - GOOD (Are anothers? Will test them, find only 2 with
this functionality). If I'm in binary mode, all inserted data (OK maybe as
string) is binary, very easy and functional.

With best regards
Radius

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[kcalc] [Bug 375681] Not correctly handle binary numbers

[Evan Teran]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375681

--- Comment #1 from Evan Teran  ---
So, the issue here is that the number is being interpreted as Octal due to the
string format.

Typical conventions (that are used by kcalc) echo those of programming
languages. Which are that numbers which start with "0x" are hexdecimal, "0" are
octal", "0b" binary. Otherwise, it assumes the current mode. So there are two
workarounds for this behavior:

1. prepend a leading 0b
2. omit the leading 0's and paste while in binary mode

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.