(\ x 0) revisited, revisited

[Glenn S. Burke <GSB at MIT-ML>]

that's remainder, not division.  Division should be an error.  Remainder,
however, should at least be compatible with what the interpreter does
(it shares code with the generic remainder, which performs the special
0 divisor check and returns x).  Getting x back for division by 0 is an
error in the program (division by 0) [at least in the maclisp world],
getting 0 (or something random) back for remainder by 0 is a bug, unless
we claim that it is an error, and then fix (break?) the generic remainder
function.