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

*To*: lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, will@xxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic*From*: William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:59:08 -0500*Cc*: sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Well, since then I've had more experience with your sense of humor, > which I find a bit quirky; on rereading the post (I don't seem to > have kept the e-mail) I couldn't really tell if you were joking then. Quirky is a nice way to put it. Thank you! > I don't think you're easily confused; and my point is that if > remainder versus modulo was confusing in 1996 for someone who > implements Scheme, I think the new operators are going to be very > confusing for people who use scheme. I think you have convinced me. I know I am convinced of the following: 1. SRFI 77's alleged rationale for div+mod, div, and mod attacks a straw man when it claims that "even on integers they are better suited than quotient and remainder to implement modular reduction." They should be compared instead to quotient and modulo. 2. When modulo is substituted for remainder in that claim, the modified claim has no foundation in SRFI 77 or in the cited paper. It seems to me that the right thing to do is to redefine div, mod, and div+mod to make them the generalizations of quotient, modulo, and quotient+modulo (not quotient+remainder) to the rationals. I also think we should flush quotient+remainder, replacing it with quotient+modulo. Will

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Next by Date:
**Integer residue-classes [was: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic]** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic** - Next by thread:
**Integer residue-classes [was: Questions about srfi-77 Generic Arithmetic]** - Index(es):