From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4fe40a6eaaea00ef3c10298bb6a642c6@coraid.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] More Microsoft bashing From: Brantley Coile Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:19:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20051216050830.GE15067@augusta.math.psu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c93d50de-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 0 <= (x MOD y) < y or y < (x MOD y) <= 0 -- `Programming in Oberon,' M. Reiser and N. Wirth, Page 36. (which is available as a pdf from the web) > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:53:06PM -0600, erik quanstrom wrote: >> | Please note that this definition of DIV and MOD differs from the >> | definition given in [M. Reiser, N. Wirth. Programming in Oberon. p. >> | 36]: >> | x = (x DIV y) * y + (x MOD y), and >> | 0 <= (x MOD y) < y > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> | >> | So, what *is* -5 MOD 3? >> | >> >> -2 > > Are you sure? It looks to me more than it'd be +1. Wirth's definition > above would tend to indicate that x MOD y is always positive, unless I'm > reading it wrong, or that's not the whole story (and I confess I'm too > lazy to look up the definitions in context). If I'm right, that would > also imply that x DIV y tends more wards negative infinity than zero > for negative numerators. > > - Dan C.