I think that since Miller is a self-described math geek, the difference is
that [mod] behaves like the mathematical (mod n). [%] is the modulo operator
used by computer science.
If my memory serves me, in number theory and abstract algebra, the m (mod n)
notation is used to define a subset of the
ok, so there is no expr function identical to the 'mod' object?
Hans r
At 13:09 14/10/2008, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>Hallo,
>Hans Roels hat gesagt: // Hans Roels wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
> > different result if you use the 'mod
thank you andy.
i guess it is a bug anyway, not in the objects, but in the
documentation. both open the same helppatch with no mention about the
difference.
max
Am 14.10.2008 um 14:32 schrieb Andy Farnell:
[%] and [mod] treat the sign differently. [mod] is monotonic
but [%] is symmetrica
maybe someone could explain _what_ the difference is?
that would be enlightening vor everybody.
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[%] and [mod] treat the sign differently. [mod] is monotonic
but [%] is symmetrical about zero.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:45:50 +0100
Hans Roels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
> different result if you use the 'mod' obj
you can use pd [mod] object or [%] object.
it's not the same for negative umber.
expr % is the same than pd %.
so i don't see any bug.
Cyrille
Hans Roels a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
> different result if you use the 'mod' object o
Hans Roels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
> different result if you use the 'mod' object or 'expr' with %.
>
> -1 4
> ||
> mod
> |
> 3
>
> -1 4
> | |
> expr $f1 % $f2
> |
> -1
>
> I guess this is a
Hallo,
Hans Roels hat gesagt: // Hans Roels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
> different result if you use the 'mod' object or 'expr' with %.
>
> -1 4
> ||
> mod
> |
> 3
>
> -1 4
> | |
> expr $f1 % $f
Hello,
If you want to calculate the modulo of a negative number, you get a
different result if you use the 'mod' object or 'expr' with %.
-1 4
||
mod
|
3
-1 4
| |
expr $f1 % $f2
|
-1
I guess this is a bug in expr ?
Hans r
__
