Re: Why no mod function?

There's no difference between "mod" and positiveRemainder; in fact if it
were possible to rename positiveRemainder to mod then I'd be quite happy.
My reason for resorting to lisp was to create a function as simple as
possible, and also as much as possible like the functions already in si.spad.
My hope was just to "drop" a definition of mod into this file and, err, have
it all work.  I could have used

x mod y == x::ZMOD(y)

or

x mod y == (x::ZMOD(y))::INT

But, let's face it, "mod" is a stock-standard function; pretty much every
mathematical system has it, so why not Axiom?

cheers,
Alasdair

On 08 Aug 2007 01:18:48 +0200, Martin Rubey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Dear Alasdair,
>
> apart from the technical issue of applying this patch to your local tree,
> I'd
> like to advise you not to resort to lisp for this particular purpose.  Try
> to
> stick to SPAD.  This will make it easier to reuse and debug your code.
>
> In fact, reading
>
> > x mod y == integer MOD(x,y)$Lisp
>
> I do not really see what mod does exactly.  Since SPAD was made for
> expressing
> maths, it should be easy to rewrite it in SPAD.
>
> By the way, what's the difference to positiveRemainder?
>
> Martin
>
>

_______________________________________________
Axiom-mail mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-mail