Avoid silent overflow in /(x::Rational, y::Complex{Int})

[nhz2]

This change catches the overflow in

(Int8(1)//Int8(1)) / (Int8(100) + Int8(100)im)

instead of incorrectly returning

25//8 - 25//8*im

This PR removes some of the specific / methods that involve complex rationals in rational.jl.
The default methods in complex.jl have better promotion rules and edge case checking. This includes the checks added in #32050, fixing #23134 for rational numbers.

The previous dispatch to // ignored overflow errors (see #53435), but would return the correct answer if the numerator was zero even if the denominator would overflow.

[nhz2]

This implementation seems to cause extra allocations. I'll try something else.

[oscardssmith]

Are you sure this is causing allocations? That would be pretty surprising.

[nhz2]

Here are some basic benchmarks:

@btime $(1//1)/$(complex(1,2))

PR: 109.592 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
master: 41.488 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

@btime $(big(1//1))/$(big(complex(1//1, 2//1)))

PR: 1.272 μs (65 allocations: 2.01 KiB)
master: 1.237 μs (65 allocations: 2.01 KiB)

@btime $(1//1)/$(complex(1//1, 2//1))

PR: 99.083 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
master: 98.738 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

@btime $(complex(1//1, 2//1))/$(1)

PR: 13.401 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
master: 13.169 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

@btime $(complex(1//1, 2//1))/$(1//1)

PR: 23.829 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
master: 24.063 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

[nhz2]

Are you sure this is causing allocations? That would be pretty surprising.

My previous attempt to fix this was, this version doesn't have that issue.

[nhz2]

Here is the old version of the function that was causing allocations.

julia> function bar(a::R, z::S) where {R<:Real, S<:Complex}
           T = promote_type(R,S)
           z_p = T(z)
           if z_p isa Complex{<:Rational}
               # avoid overflow if a is zero and z isn't zero
               if iszero(z_p)
                   throw(DivideError())
               elseif iszero(a)
                   return a*inv(oneunit(z_p))
               end
           end
           a*inv(z_p)
       end
bar (generic function with 1 method)

julia> using BenchmarkTools

julia> @btime bar($(1.0), $(2.0+im))
  108.677 ns (3 allocations: 128 bytes)
0.4 - 0.2im

[nhz2]

I removed the extra method for /(a::Rational, z::Complex{<:Integer}) because I don't think it was worth the added complexity.

[nsajko]

This is wrong. The correct result is positive infinity, just like here:

julia> (1 // 1) / 0
1//0

[nhz2]

With complex numbers, there are many possible infinities, I'm not sure what infinity is correct.

julia> 1.0/(0.0im)
NaN + NaN*im

[nhz2]

Ref: #22983
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-inv-complex-0-0-0-0-returns-complex-nan-nan/92694/1

[nsajko]

You're right, sorry.

[nhz2]

This PR is ready to merge and will help with testing #56478

[nhz2]

Bump