From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,287e8ed2b0c0aabf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-31 14:18:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
From: Dan Nagle <dnagle@erols.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Zeller's Algorithm
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:15:51 -0400
Organization: Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
Message-ID: <5lkgkukkd7ofjmdpkpfd89n33vf93b8aen@4ax.com>
References: <3D3DED1F.24DE3AC8@lmco.com> <3D46CA0E.BCD17D9C@none.provided>
 <3D470EEE.811F758D@lmco.com> <719a5d07.0207310251.8f1adef@posting.google.com>
 <kzS19.1$dz5.0@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> <wccvg6v1zj2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <3D483A0B.46EB2F7C@san.rr.com> <1028145549.13341@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbpHsFWphE5YHNfzjnabK6+8WAFkJiG3E6PvGHEdBL4vK77FRLyS/Bh
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2002 21:17:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27537
Date: 2002-07-31T21:17:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

The Fortran 95 standard has two intrinsic functions,
mod() and modulo(), which have subtly different definitions.

I wonder which one the C++ committee thought they were modeling?

BTW, the Fortran 2000 standard doesn't change anything here,
so you can check this for free at http://www.j3-fortran.org
and clicking on Fortran 200x for a few megabytes of PDF
of the current draft standard.

-- 
Cheers!

Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:01:27 -0400, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> Robert A Duff wrote:
>>>Doesn't this make the % operator totally useless for negative numbers?
>> Yes.
>
>No. It is required in C or C++ that for non-zero b,
>	a / b * b + a % b == a
>
>When division rounds towards zero, as is usually desired
>(the C++ standard claims that this is what the Fortran
>standard requires), this forces the remainder operation
>to return negative results. Eg., we want -3 / 2 == -1,
>so we must have -3 % 2 == -1 for the requirement to hold.