I _think_ (but am not sure) that "%" works differently on different CPU architectures.
cheers Miller On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 06:27:33PM -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > 2016-05-07 14:53 GMT-03:00 Miller Puckette <[email protected]>: > > > I put in a sentence to scare users away from "%". Use "mod" instead :) > > > > oh, but I can't see it, so you just did it now, right? > > I know they differ for negative values input, never knew why the reason.. > > expr also has a "%" function that behaves in the same way as the [%] > object, to make things more confusing, a "fmod" function in expr also > behaves in the same was as "%", but for float arguments, and not like > vanilla's [mod] > > in max, [%~] (or [modulo~]) will behave the same way as "fmod" in expr, > that is modulo for float arguments, which is also in agreement to pd > vanilla's % - only that pd's is for ints. > > With all that, what I mean to ask and say is that I can't see what's wrong > with [%] - the odd one out seems to be [mod]. > > what do you say? > > cheers _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
