There's no difference between "mod" and positiveRemainder; in fact if it were possible to rename positiveRemainder to mod then I'd be quite happy. My reason for resorting to lisp was to create a function as simple as possible, and also as much as possible like the functions already in si.spad. My hope was just to "drop" a definition of mod into this file and, err, have it all work. I could have used
x mod y == x::ZMOD(y) or x mod y == (x::ZMOD(y))::INT But, let's face it, "mod" is a stock-standard function; pretty much every mathematical system has it, so why not Axiom? cheers, Alasdair On 08 Aug 2007 01:18:48 +0200, Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Alasdair, > > apart from the technical issue of applying this patch to your local tree, > I'd > like to advise you not to resort to lisp for this particular purpose. Try > to > stick to SPAD. This will make it easier to reuse and debug your code. > > In fact, reading > > > x mod y == integer MOD(x,y)$Lisp > > I do not really see what mod does exactly. Since SPAD was made for > expressing > maths, it should be easy to rewrite it in SPAD. > > By the way, what's the difference to positiveRemainder? > > Martin > >
_______________________________________________ Axiom-mail mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-mail
