On 16 January 2007 18:42, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 16 January 2007 18:23, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>>> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>>> \
>>>> No, because the instruction has actually two result values:
>>>>
>>>> - the remainder, which you could safely set to zero (not 1!)
>>>>
>>>> - the quotient, which is affected by the overflow and there may be
>>>> compiler and languages that rely on the exception being generated.
>>> But the division is undefined, programs have no right to
>>> rely on an exception being generated.
>>
>> It really depends whether you think of the % operator as being an atomic
>> mathematical operation, or a compound function involving real division and
>> multiplication and subtraction. I think the wording of the standard says
>> only that the inequality "(a/b)*b + a%b == a" does not hold when (a/b)
>> cannot be represented, but does not deny the modulo operator the option of
>> just returning the correct result, which is representable.
>
> I think you missed my point
Oops, yeh. I was thinking of Andrew Haley's question about the wording of
the language in the standard.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
