Re: Greatest Common Divisor
От | Vik Fearing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 127babac-d457-07c6-2251-f607ea9442ee@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Greatest Common Divisor (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Greatest Common Divisor
Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/01/2020 01:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 03/01/2020 20:14, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> I'm unsure about gcd(INT_MIN, 0) should error. Possibly 0 would be nicer? >> What justification for that do you have? > Zero is the "correct" answer for that, isn't it, independently of overflow > considerations? I would say not. The correct answer is INT_MIN but we've decided a negative result is not desirable. > We should strive to give the correct answer if it's known > and representable, rather than have arbitrary failure conditions. On that we fully agree. > (IOW, we should throw errors only when the *result* is out of range > or undefined, not just because the input is an edge case.) That's what I do with the rest of it. INT_MIN is only an error if the result of the calculation is also INT_MIN. -- Vik Fearing
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: