Re: MATH_MOD: Include in GLib?

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:43:21 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Daniel Brockman <drlion deepwood net> writes:
> > #define MOD(x, m) ((x) >= 0 ? (x) % (m) : (m) + (x) % (m))
> If at all it would have to be G_MOD(x). But I doubt that
> the semantics of such a macro are obvious enough and that it would be
> of general usefulness.

I consider this macro as a generally used workaround of a bug in C standard.
I intuitively expect the result of "x%m" will be 0..(m-1), not the C result
of -(m-1)..(m-1).  It has similiar position as G_N_ELEMENTS().

> Shouldn't defining it in one of your headers be good enough?

It applies to the whole utility part of GLib.


Jan Kratochvil; Captive: free r/w NTFS Filesystem;

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