# Version 1.1 of ai05s/ai05-0260-1.txt

Unformatted version of ai05s/ai05-0260-1.txt version 1.1
Other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0260-1.txt

!standard 4.5.5(8)          11-06-19 AI05-0260-1/01
!class binding interpretation 11-06-19
!status work item 11-06-16
!priority Low
!difficulty Easy
!qualifier Error
!subject Pedantic question on the wording of the definition of modulo
!summary
Zero doesn't have a sign, so we need to except it from the wording.
!question
4.5.5(8) says:
The signed integer modulus operation is defined such that the result of A mod B has the sign of B and an absolute value less than the absolute value of B; in addition, for some signed integer value N, the result satisfies the relation:
A = B*N + (A mod B)
If A := 0 and B < 0 then the only solution to the relation that has abs(A mod B) < abs(B) is A mod B = 0. But 0 does not have the "sign of B" (it is not negative). Should this be fixed? (Yes.)
!wording
Modify the start of 4.5.5(8):
The signed integer modulus operation is defined such that the result of A mod B {is either zero, or} has the sign of B and an absolute value less than the absolute value of B; in addition, ...
!discussion
!ACATS Test
None needed.
!ASIS
No change needed.
!appendix
```
!topic Pedantic question on the wording of the definition of modulo
!from Martin Brain 11-05-17
!keywords multiplicative operators, modulo, pendantry
!discussion

In the Ada 2005 LRM (ISO/IEC 8652:2007 Ed 3), Section 4.5.5 defines the modulo
operator as:

<quote>
The signed integer modulus operation is defined such that the result of A mod B
has the sign of B and an absolute value less than the absolute value of B; in
addition, for some signed integer value N, the result satisfies the relation:

A = B*N + (A mod B)
</quote>

If A := 0 and B < 0 then the only solution to the relation that has abs(A mod B)
< abs(B) is A mod B = 0, which I believe to be the intended and expected result.
However the sign of zero is not the same as the sign of a negative number,
giving a contradiction.  Although this is a point of pedantry, it would be nice
if the wording of the definition was changed.

****************************************************************