On 08/07/2014 09:24, tgingold@free.fr wrote: >> I agree that the resolution proposal inherently feels wrong to use as >> a solution. >> >> I'm not sure I understand what the problems with (1) are (apart from >> overflowing) in performing all the arithmetic in normal integer mode >> and implicitly converting to the modular type on assignment. > Well, the arithmetic is not the same. Eg: (3 + 1) mod 3 > > For a signed type, the result is 1. > For a modular type with a modulus of 4, the result is 0. > > Regards, > Tristan. > That's why the proposal is carry out the 'mod' function implicitly on the final assignment to the actual. Regards, Brent. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jul 10 15:52:50 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 10 2014 - 15:53:29 PDT