[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic*From*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:05:48 -0600*Cc*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <E1FAhGd-0000tB-BA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <E1FAhGd-0000tB-BA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Feb 18, 2006, at 11:37 PM, William D Clinger wrote:

Bradley Lucier wrote:For now, let me just point out http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/32949cdfdda958f8? where either you pulled one over on me that I didn't realize, or you didn't know what MODULO meant in 1996. I think introducing this operator will make things very much worse.If I pulled anything over on you, it was by accident. I think it's obvious from that 1996 post that I didn't know what modulo meant in 1996.

I'm not sure of your point. Is it that, if the modulo vs remainder distinction was confusing enough to confuse me in 1996, the ad hockity of the proposed div and mod will be confusing enough to confuse me (and perhaps a few other easily confused folk) ten years later? If that's your point, I concede it.

Brad

**References**:**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic***From:*William D Clinger

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Next by Date:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Next by thread:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Index(es):