OK, got it. I should have closer look at http://squeaksource.com/Testing/ too.
Cheers, - on On 8 Jul 2009, at 00:05, Michael Roberts wrote: > No you understand certainly, I wasn't clear. If we provide a nice api > for comparing things are equal it would be a shame to not provide the > convenience for doubles. Newcomers to the environment would not > necessarily understand the pitfalls of testing equality on doubles. > Thus providing convenience in one area could look very attractive in > the general case if there are no other methods hinting their > appropriate use. I'm sure such a method has already been written in a > repository somewhere . I just thought it would be good to put them in > together. That make sense? > > Mike > > On Tuesday, July 7, 2009, Oscar Nierstrasz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> I don't understand. assert:equals: should only be used for exact >> equality tests, not for comparing doubles. >> >> Doubles should never go through this method. >> >> Existing tests won't know about assert:equals: >> >> Did I misunderstand you? >> >> - on >> >> On 7 Jul 2009, at 19:24, Michael Roberts wrote: >> >>> If you are adding this it would be good to either add or review >>> existing implementation that checks the comparison is within a >>> tolerance. This would be for asserting double values are close but >>> not >>> necessarily exact. I would rather we didn't get double comparison >>> going through this method you describe which would be easy to do. >>> >>> Thanks >>> mike >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
