Modulo Operator %%
Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 17:22:30 UTC 2019
Fair points, but since `**` has its `Math.pow` counter part, why wouldn't
`%%` have `Math.mod` as counterpart too? At least it looks like there's
room for both, if standardized, as the behavior and description would
likely be mostly the same (precedence a part)
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190815/672420b3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the es-discuss
mailing list