These functions are quite extensively tested here: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/c072d1ce73345e153e4fddf656cda544013b1219/test/numbers.jl#L1171-L1610
If you find some aspect of their behavior which is not well tested, by all means add more tests. On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Pranit Bauva <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks! I am writing testing code for base/int.jl so had some doubts. > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Note that this is in the documentation for these functions: > > > > help?> % > > search: % .% > > > > rem(x, y) > > %(x, y) > > > > Remainder from Euclidean division, returning a value of the same sign > as > > x, and > > smaller in magnitude than y. This value is always exact. > > > > x == div(x,y)*y + rem(x,y) > > > > help?> mod > > search: mod modf mod1 module mod2pi Module module_name module_parent > chmod > > invmod > > > > mod(x, y) > > > > Modulus after flooring division, returning in the range [0,y), if y is > > positive, > > or (y,0] if y is negative. > > > > x == fld(x,y)*y + mod(x,y) > > > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > >> > >> The % operator is shorthand rem, which computes the remainder; the sign > of > >> the result matches the first argument. The mod function also exists, > which > >> computes the modulus, the result of which matches its second argument. > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Pranit Bauva <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hey everyone! > >>> > >>> Julia's way of handling negative values in % seem to be different. > >>> julia> 7 % -3 > >>> 1 > >>> > >>> julia> -7 % 3 > >>> -1 > >>> > >>> julia> -7 % -3 > >>> -1 > >>> > >>> julia> > >>> > >>> > >>> Is this a bug or a feature? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Pranit Bauva > >> > >> > > >
