"The set of mpq functions is quite small." Is this by design?

[Torbjörn Granlund]

"Marco Bodrato" <bodrato at mail.dm.unipi.it> writes:

  A note about naming conventions: there are currently two functions with
  names matching mpq_*_ui: mpq_set_ui, and mpq_cmp_ui. They both take
  TWO ui arguments, representing a fraction with both a small numerator
  and a small denominator.

  If we mean adding mpq_{add,sub,mul,div}_ui, for a _single_ ui argument,
  well, why not? It's 80 lines of code... plus some more for testing...

Perhaps the _ui for a ulong tuple was poor design, but now that that
choice was made, how about having mpq_add_ui take a ui tuple too?
Passing 1 for the denominator isn't too hard, and the added overhead
will be minimal (the case t/1 could be singled out in the
implementation).

-- 
Torbjörn
Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622