This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author mark.dickinson
Recipients belopolsky, iritkatriel, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, steven.daprano, tim.peters
Date 2021-08-20.10:31:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1629455503.91.0.00342687094399.issue27353@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
[Irit]

> Is this still needed?

It's not needed for geometric_mean. It's still a reasonable feature request, but it would be non-trivial effort to put a good quality implementation together - C doesn't have this function, so we can't simply wrap it like we did for cbrt. But at least IEEE 754 does specify a "rootn" function, so we know what the behaviour should be in all the various special cases.

cbrt probably covers a good proportion of use-cases for rootn (those that weren't already satisfied by sqrt).

NumPy seems to have survived without needing a rootn function so far, which seems like an indication that it's not a really pressing need.

Let's close, and re-open or open a new issue if someone discovers another good use-case.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-08-20 10:31:43mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, belopolsky, steven.daprano, skrah, serhiy.storchaka, iritkatriel
2021-08-20 10:31:43mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1629455503.91.0.00342687094399.issue27353@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-08-20 10:31:43mark.dickinsonlinkissue27353 messages
2021-08-20 10:31:43mark.dickinsoncreate