Re: [Bug-apl] Overflow in LCM

[Juergen Sauermann]

Hi Louis, I see. I overlooked that the first and third example were similar. Fixed in SVN 927. /// Jürgen On 04/21/2017 09:48 AM, Louis de Forcrand wrote: The last one (at least IMO) should be positive and equal to the (correct) result of the first of the three examples, because 9094863431 = 9094863431J0 Cheers, Louis On 20 Apr 2017, at 18:43, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: Hi Kacper, maybe, but the ISO standard says (function And/LCM on page 93) :       ¯29J53 ∧ ¯1J107 ¯853J¯329 So the question is: what are the rules for setting the sign of the result? No rules in ISO, no rules in APL2 either. Strictly speaking, if X is some least common multiple then -X is also a common multiple (I believe least refers the magnitude of the LCM, otherwise the ISO example would be wrong). Confused, /// Jürgen On 04/20/2017 06:23 PM, Kacper Gutowski wrote: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:42:25PM +0200, Juergen Sauermann wrote: thanks, fixed in SVN 926. I believe that the last example is not an overflow but the proper result. At least tryapl.org says so. Thanks. I think the last one also should be positive. Tryapl says so too. -k