4 ms·

What language defines % as mod and not remainder?

jacobolus 8y ago
According to Wikipedia: Perl, Python, Lua, Ruby, Tcl, R (as %%), Smalltalk (as \\), various other languages under some alternate name, sometimes with the two variants given different names. The other (“remainder”) version which takes its sign from the first argument is pretty much worthless in practice. IMO it doesn’t need any name at all. But what it definitely doesn’t need is a shorter and more convenient name than the useful modulo operator. Its ubiquity is a serious screwup in programming language design, albeit largely accidental.
- simonbyrne 8y ago
  I guess because remainder is simpler to implement? (anecdotally, the assembly generated by @code_native in Julia is much shorter for remainder) In my opinion neither are used sufficiently often to justify taking up a valuable ASCII symbol (same with xor).
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    This depends on what the behavior is of the division operator. People should use floor division, then implementing modulo is easy. I don’t know what is available as chip instructions, I could certainly believe hardware designers made the wrong choice.
    - simonbyrne 8y ago
      I take the opinion that people should have the option to round division (and compute remainders) however they want: down, up, to zero, to nearest (with different options for breaking ties). https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9283 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9283
      - ScottBurson 8y ago
        Common Lisp has all four division operators ('floor', 'ceiling', 'truncate' (equivalent to what most languages consider division), and 'round') [0], and both 'mod' and 'rem' [1]. [0] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_floorc.htm http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_floo... [1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_mod_r.htm http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_mod_...
  - simonbyrne 8y ago
    The other point is that remainder makes much more sense for floating point numbers, as it's exact. mod on the other hand is not, and is fiendishly difficult to get "right" (if that is even possible).
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      In what context do you use it? I use a “mod” operator all the time for floating point calculations, and have never come across a need for the other one. As one simple example, it is frequently useful to map floats into the range [0, 2π), but I have never once wanted to map positive floats into the range [0, 2π) while negative floats get mapped into (–2π, 0] by the same code.
      - simonbyrne 8y ago
        Well, I have indeed spent more time thinking about this than is probably healthy, but here are some nice edge cases to think about: - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/14826 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/14826 mod(-eps(), 4.0) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17415 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17415 fld(1.0,0.2) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3127 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3127 mod(1.0,0.1) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3104 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3104 mod(0.95,0.01) I'm pretty sure there are more issues. re: mod 2pi, typically it is most accurate to reduce to (-pi,pi) (i.e. division rounding to nearest). Also to get it accurate you need fancy range reduction algorithms, hence julia has rem2pi https://docs.julialang.org/en/stable/base/math/#Base.Math.rem2pi https://docs.julialang.org/en/stable/base/math/#Base.Math.re...
        jacobolus 8y ago
        Without knowing the intended use case of the code, the edge case behavior in some of these cases is pretty meaningless. Different behavior might make sense in different applications, and in many applications the choice is largely irrelevant. Whichever one you choose someone who wants the other version will have to work around it. These examples don’t really have much bearing on the general usefulness of “remainder” vs. “modulo” though.

According to Wikipedia: Perl, Python, Lua, Ruby, Tcl, R (as %%), Smalltalk (as \\), various other languages under some alternate name, sometimes with the two variants given different names. The other (“remainder”) version which takes its sign from the first argument is pretty much worthless in practice. IMO it doesn’t need any name at all. But what it definitely doesn’t need is a shorter and more convenient name than the useful modulo operator. Its ubiquity is a serious screwup in programming language design, albeit largely accidental.

simonbyrne 8y ago
I guess because remainder is simpler to implement? (anecdotally, the assembly generated by @code_native in Julia is much shorter for remainder) In my opinion neither are used sufficiently often to justify taking up a valuable ASCII symbol (same with xor).
- jacobolus 8y ago
  This depends on what the behavior is of the division operator. People should use floor division, then implementing modulo is easy. I don’t know what is available as chip instructions, I could certainly believe hardware designers made the wrong choice.
  - simonbyrne 8y ago
    I take the opinion that people should have the option to round division (and compute remainders) however they want: down, up, to zero, to nearest (with different options for breaking ties). https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9283 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9283
    - ScottBurson 8y ago
      Common Lisp has all four division operators ('floor', 'ceiling', 'truncate' (equivalent to what most languages consider division), and 'round') [0], and both 'mod' and 'rem' [1]. [0] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_floorc.htm http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_floo... [1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_mod_r.htm http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw50/CLHS/Body/f_mod_...
- simonbyrne 8y ago
  The other point is that remainder makes much more sense for floating point numbers, as it's exact. mod on the other hand is not, and is fiendishly difficult to get "right" (if that is even possible).
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    In what context do you use it? I use a “mod” operator all the time for floating point calculations, and have never come across a need for the other one. As one simple example, it is frequently useful to map floats into the range [0, 2π), but I have never once wanted to map positive floats into the range [0, 2π) while negative floats get mapped into (–2π, 0] by the same code.
    - simonbyrne 8y ago
      Well, I have indeed spent more time thinking about this than is probably healthy, but here are some nice edge cases to think about: - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/14826 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/14826 mod(-eps(), 4.0) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17415 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/17415 fld(1.0,0.2) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3127 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3127 mod(1.0,0.1) - https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3104 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3104 mod(0.95,0.01) I'm pretty sure there are more issues. re: mod 2pi, typically it is most accurate to reduce to (-pi,pi) (i.e. division rounding to nearest). Also to get it accurate you need fancy range reduction algorithms, hence julia has rem2pi https://docs.julialang.org/en/stable/base/math/#Base.Math.rem2pi https://docs.julialang.org/en/stable/base/math/#Base.Math.re...
      - jacobolus 8y ago
        Without knowing the intended use case of the code, the edge case behavior in some of these cases is pretty meaningless. Different behavior might make sense in different applications, and in many applications the choice is largely irrelevant. Whichever one you choose someone who wants the other version will have to work around it. These examples don’t really have much bearing on the general usefulness of “remainder” vs. “modulo” though.