Author gladman
Recipients akira, brg@gladman.plus.com, gladman, mark.dickinson, mrabarnett, scoder, steven.daprano, terry.reedy, vstinner, wolma
Date 2014-09-25.17:08:55
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <54244C28.5040509@gladman.plus.com>
In-reply-to <1411663482.9.0.367326202791.issue22477@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 25/09/2014 17:44, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> 
> Mark Dickinson added the comment:
> 
>> IMHO, the most straight forward way for a new gcd() function to work would
>> be to always, predictably return a non-negative value.
> 
> Yes.  Any new gcd implementation (in the math module, for example) should definitely return the unique nonnegative gcd of its inputs.
> 
> In an effort to concentrate the discussion a bit, here's a specific
> proposal, deliberately limited in scope:
> 
> 1. Add a new (faster) math.gcd function for Python 3.5, taking two integral arguments, and returning the unique nonnegative greatest common divisor of those arguments.
> 
> 2. Deprecate fractions.gcd in Python 3.5 (with a message suggesting that math.gcd should be used instead), but don't change its behaviour.  (The fractions module would likely be using math.gcd by this point.)
> 
> 3. Remove fractions.gcd in Python 3.6.
> 
> I'd suggest that tangents about gcd of more than two arguments, gcd of rational / Decimal / float inputs, etc. be discussed elsewhere.  Those are all things that can be added later if there's a real use-case.

My summary crossed with this plan from Mark, which I support (minus the
bit he subsequently retracted).

+1
History
Date User Action Args
2014-09-25 17:08:55gladmansetrecipients: + gladman, terry.reedy, mark.dickinson, scoder, vstinner, mrabarnett, steven.daprano, akira, wolma, brg@gladman.plus.com
2014-09-25 17:08:55gladmanlinkissue22477 messages
2014-09-25 17:08:55gladmancreate