[GiNaC-list] Bug in numer_denom?

[Ernst Moritz Hahn]

Hi Richard,

thanks for the answer!

> Is anything wrong? I don't know. Please, try to reduce example output 
> you send to the mailing list as much as possible. Nobody wants to 
> discussing output of excessive length.

OK, sorry about that. I assumed the normal form to be expanded, as I
thought the representation would be the same for equal rational
functions. When using GiNaC, I did not see an example where this was not
the case for smaller terms before.

Regards,
Moritz