From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Question on modular types
Date: 1997/01/11
Date: 1997-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.852989288@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: E3qur5.7LM.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com
Tuck said (answering my query about unary minus on modular types)
"Two places: 3.5.4(19) gives the general rule that anytime the result
of a predefined operator of a modular type is outside the base range of
the type, the result is reduced modulo the modulus of the type.
The second is in a note, 4.5.4(3)."
Ah, yes, silly me, expecting to find the semantics of unary minus in
the section on operator semantics (or at least in the chapter on
expression semantics) :-)
Yes, I saw the note, but the question was where that note came from,
especially since 4.5.4(1) says that "-" on modular types has its
conventional meaning (which I can only take as the mathematical
meaning), and hence contradicts 3.5.4(19).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-01-11 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-01-04 0:00 Question on modular types Jerry van Dijk
1997-01-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-06 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk
1997-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-01-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-09 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1997-01-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1997-01-12 0:00 ` Joel VanLaven
1997-01-09 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-01-06 0:00 ` Joel VanLaven
1997-01-08 0:00 ` Stan and/or Jill Grimes
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox