Proposal: Make gcd total

[wren ng thornton]

On 5/29/11 6:54 AM, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On 29 May 2011 01:21, wren ng thornton wrote:
>> On 5/28/11 8:38 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:
>>> (By the way, non-negative, like the current positive, is not entirely true,
>>> for bounded signed integer types [with twos' complement representation],
>>> gcd minBound minBound = gcd minBound 0 = minBound<   0,
>>> should that special case be mentioned or should we ignore it like we
>>> currently do?)
>>
>> That's a sticky issue, but one that needs to be documented. Given that
>> the result is always positive with the exception of gcd 0 0, gcd
>> minBound minBound, gcd minBound 0, and gcd 0 minBound, I think these
>> corner cases should be specifically enumerated.
>
> There is a difference: gcd 0 0 follows from a general rule, but the
> minBound ones are the sort of corner wierdness we get for using
> fixed-size types.  (That is, the former should be mentioned as a
> non-obvious consequence, the latter as an exception/bug.)

Right.

/me notices that Daniel Fischer gave the same response.

Bugs, especially, need to be documented so that people can use the 
library with full knowledge of its abilities and limitations. 
Non-obvious consequences (which are still relevant or intriguing) are 
best documented because they save reasoning time, and may lead to deeper 
thinking.

-- 
Live well,
~wren