But if the definition of modulo is correct, then isn't ToInt32 wrong?
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-7.1.5
Here, -3 is transformed into 3.

Raul M


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Claude Pache <claude.pache at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Le 16 sept. 2013 à 11:30, raul mihaila <raul.mihaila at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I think the definition of modulo is wrong.
> http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-5.2
> k should be of the same sign as x not as y.
>
>
> I think the definition is correct, and is more useful than the opposite
> convention. It is indeed the opposite convention of the one used by the
> remainder operator (`%` in JS), but it is not the remainder operator. (BTW,
> is there any chance that the modulo operator [1] will be introduced in
> EcmaScript, rather sooner than later?)
>
> [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:modulo_operator
>
> In fact, since `x modulo y` is apparently only use with positive (and
> integral) `y` in the specification, the definition should be simplified, by
> restricting to the case where `y` is positive.
>
>
> Also, shouldn't ToUint32 and ToUint16 return only positive numbers? If the
> argument is, for example, -3, the result will be -3 (assuming that the
> modulo definition is wrong). Or maybe the argument will never be negative?
>
>
> Assuming the modulo definition is correct, `ToUint32` and `ToUint16` work
> as expected (if the argument is `-3` the result is `2^32-3`, resp. `2^16-3`.
>
> —Claude
>
>
>
> Raul M
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130916/d8490876/attachment-0001.html>

But if the definition of modulo is correct, then isn't ToInt32 wrong?
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-7.1.5
Here, -3 is transformed into 3.