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

*To*: info-lispm at MIT-AI*Subject*: FIXing functions*From*: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A*Date*: Tue ,17 Mar 81 17:03:00 EDT*Cc*: bug-lisp at MIT-MC

(In the following note, I will let "FX" mean "any one of FLOOR, CEIL, TRUNC, or ROUND".) I strongly support the idea that the FIXing functions return two values: quotient and remainder. These are not hard to compile if they are appropriately special-cased. The compiler can easily tell what is going on in such situations as: (FX Z) (FX Z Y) (MULTIPLE-VALUE (Q R) (FX Z)) (MULTIPLE-VALUE (() R) (FX Z)) ;i.e., MOD or REMAINDER and generate appropriate code for each. To be more precise, it seems to me that the type of the second result should be floating if either argument is, and an integer if both arguments are integers. Also, the one-argument case is exactly the same as specifying a second argument of 1; hence an appropriate description of the function is (DEFUN FX (X &OPTIONAL (Y 1)) ...). Finally, the results Q and R are such that X=Q*Y+R, modulo any floating-point inaccuracies. Hence we have the following examples: Results Argument(s) FLOOR CEIL TRUNC ROUND 4.5 4 0.5 5 -0.5 4 0.5 4 0.5 4.5 2 2 0.5 3 -0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 7.0 2 3 1.0 4 -1.0 3 1.0 4 -1.0 7 2 3 1 4 -1 3 1 4 -1 7 2.3 3 0.1 4 -2.2 3 0.1 3 0.1 7.5 2.3 3 0.6 4 -1.7 3 0.6 3 0.6 9 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 Implementationally it is convenient to break this down into a number of cases. Semantically I believe this is the most useful definition. --Guy

- Prev by Date:
**[no subject]** - Next by Date:
**Re: FIXing functions** - Previous by thread:
**[no subject]** - Next by thread:
**Re: FIXing functions** - Index(es):