Multiple division rendering

[yueyericardo]

handcalcs version: 1.1.3
As shown below, a should be rendered as c, otherwise it's the same rendering with b, which is totally different.

%%render
a = 4/2/2  # The answer will be 4 for the rendered equation
b = 4/(2/2)
c = (4/2)/2  # Should be correct rending
d = 4/(2*2)  # Or this will be better

[connorferster]

Hi @yueyericardo, I have been thinking about this one. I intentionally programmed it to render this way but, you are right, it creates a "gotcha" with the a) case because the reduced size of the fraction in the denominator implies that the denominator should be evaluated first, followed by the division of the numerator. At the very least, I should highlight this in the documentation.

What if there was a behaviour that recognized whether or not a portion of a nested fraction was contained within parentheses and only made that portion smaller if it is contained in parentheses (so, the b) and c) case would remain as shown above)?

This would then change the a) case to render as follows:

Does that make it less ambiguous? I would still be inclined to interpret that as (4*2) / 2. Personally, while I would punch something like 4 / 2 / 2 into a calculator, when I am working in handcalcs I would be inclined to make it less ambiguous by showing it as the c) or d) case, like you have shown.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

[connorferster]

I guess this is an example of this:
PEDMAS vs Algebra

I think I will just make a note of this in the documentation and leave it at that. Writing 4/2/2 is ambiguous when represented as a nested fraction so I think it would be best just not to write it as a fraction e.g. use 4/(2*2) instead

[michaellisitsa]

Could you check for 2 divisions in a row where there are no brackets, and place the term after the second division separately?

[connorferster]

@michaellisitsa,

That's not a bad idea. I don't particularly like it because I have been emotionally attached to my "all division as fractions" approach. It's taken me several hours to just get used to the idea of breaking it (and I am still grieving its loss). However, I think this might be the most attractive and least ambiguous solution even though I shudder imagining an equation written this way and groan a little inside imagining the implementation and testing.

Unless anyone has any other ideas, I will go with this in the next update.

[connorferster]

Okay, I am done being a big baby. Thank you @michaellisitsa for getting me in the creative mode!

I have an idea that I am pretty excited about. Instead of switching from fractions to the slash, I have kept the fractions by doing it this way:

It looks like it's fussy to do but it was actually pretty straight forward.

[yueyericardo]

Cool, I think it's a good idea!

[connorferster]

Glad to hear it! The change has been made and added to the master branch. It will be available in the next release.