Re: Question on modular types

[bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)]

In article <dewar.852779585@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>iRobert Duff said
>
>"Convention to those who have read the RM, and understand that arithmetic
            ^al
>on modular types is always wrap-around arithmetic.  ;-)"

By the way, the above smiley was meant to imply some sympathy for the
earlier poster's view, that calling wrap-around arithmetic
"conventional" is obfuscatory.  It wasn't intended as an admonishment to
RTFM.

>I cannot find anywhere in the RM where it says that unary minus has
>wrap around arithmetic semantics, can you point me to the place where
>this is said.

3.5.4(19).

- Bob