Modulo Operator %%
Isiah Meadows
isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 16:22:07 UTC 2019
An operator is far more concise than a function call, and is likely to
see greater use. It also aligns better with peoples' intuition on what
the "modulus" is, avoiding subtle bugs like in `isOdd = x => x % 2 ===
1` (example from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation#Common_pitfalls - try
passing a negative to it). And given this one is high value (see
above) and *very* low cost (it can literally desugar to `(x % y + y) %
y`), I feel it does meet that bar.
> It would be interesting to hear the feedback of those that use regularly powers, whether the benefit was clear (personally, I almost never use either `Math.pow()` or `**`, so that I can’t say anything).
It has enough benefit I've seen CoffeeScript users default to `%%` and
only using `%` when they explicitly want the dividend-dependent
semantics. And engines with a native `%%`, if they can detect the
operands are always non-negative, can optimize it to `%` pretty
easily. It's better *enough* that you'd likely start seeing some
partially legitimate FUD spread about the standard `%`.
One other added benefit of using divisor-dependent modulo is that `x
%% (2**n)`, where `x` and `n` are integers and `n >= 0`, could always
be safely rewritten to `x & (2**n - 1)` while still preserving
semantics, but `x % (2**n)` does *not* have this property. For
example:
- `-1 %% (2**1)` → `-1 %% 1` → `1`
- `-1 & (2**1 - 1)` → `-1 & 1` → `1`
- `-1 % (2**1)` → `-1 % 2` → `-1`
BTW, I literally tested all three of these in Chrome's devtools
console, using my `x %% y` → `(x % y + y) % y` desugaring.
As for a native implementation and the spec, I'd recommend just doing
`copysign(fmod(x, y), y)` instead to retain precision.
> At least one disadvantage of an operator over a function, is that you have to think about precedence. The problem is exacerbated in JS, because (following some other languages) the unary minus has an uncanny high precedence level, confusingly very different than the one of the binary minus; so that, after having designed `**`, it was realised at the last minute that `-a**b` would be dumbly interpreted as `(-a)**b` instead of `-(a**b)` or `0-a**b`, as anybody who would be likely to actually use the operator would expect. (That particular issue was resolved in a hurry by making the parenthesis-left form a syntax error.)
I doubt this would happen with `%%`. It's similar enough to the
existing `%` in concept that most would expect it to have the same
precedence. With `**`, there was a very unique issue with it: there
were people actually *reading* it both ways, and even a language
(Python) that interprets `-a ** b` and `-a**b` *differently* in light
of that (as `(-a) ** b` and `-(a ** b)` respectively). That's not a
concern at all with most operators, so it doesn't apply to most new
operator proposals.
-----
Isiah Meadows
contact at isiahmeadows.com
www.isiahmeadows.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:40 AM Claude Pache <claude.pache at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 12 août 2019 à 22:00, Matthew Morgan <mmm211 at zips.uakron.edu> a écrit :
>
> > JS needs a modulo operator. It currently has the remainder operator `%` which works in most cases except for negative values. I believe the the `%%` would work great and be easy to remember.
> >
> > let x = (-13) %% 64;
> > is equivalent to
> > let x = ((-13 % 64) + 64) % 64;
>
>
> Is there a strong advantage of an `%%` operator over a `Math.mod()` function? There is the precedent of the `**` operator implemented as alternative of `Math.pow()` few years ago. It would be interesting to hear the feedback of those that use regularly powers, whether the benefit was clear (personally, I almost never use either `Math.pow()` or `**`, so that I can’t say anything).
>
> At least one disadvantage of an operator over a function, is that you have to think about precedence. The problem is exacerbated in JS, because (following some other languages) the unary minus has an uncanny high precedence level, confusingly very different than the one of the binary minus; so that, after having designed `**`, it was realised at the last minute that `-a**b` would be dumbly interpreted as `(-a)**b` instead of `-(a**b)` or `0-a**b`, as anybody who would be likely to actually use the operator would expect. (That particular issue was resolved in a hurry by making the parenthesis-left form a syntax error.)
>
> —Claude
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
More information about the es-discuss
mailing list