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....