Hi internals,
I noticed that `bcmod()` behavior is a little different from what I expected.
First, look at the following code for `bcdiv()`:
bcdiv('99', '100', 2); // '0.99'
So what should the following code be?
bcmod('99', '100', 2);
The result is `'99.00'`.
I was expecting `'0.00'` for this. I thought that if gave `bcdiv()` and `bcmod()` the exact same arguments, their results would not contradict each other.
To me this is unexpected behaviour, how do you think?
Regards,
Saki
Hi internals,
I noticed that `bcmod()` behavior is a little different from what I expected.
First, look at the following code for `bcdiv()`:
bcdiv('99', '100', 2); // '0.99'
So what should the following code be?
bcmod('99', '100', 2);
The result is `'99.00'`.
I was expecting `'0.00'` for this. I thought that if gave `bcdiv()` and `bcmod()` the exact same arguments, their results would not contradict each other.
To me this is unexpected behaviour, how do you think?
Regards,
Saki
However, considering the behavior of `fdiv()` and `fmod()`, the current behavior of `bcmod()`may be correct and my thinking may be wrong...
Saki
Hi internals,
I noticed that `bcmod()` behavior is a little different from what I expected.
First, look at the following code for `bcdiv()`:
bcdiv('99', '100', 2); // '0.99'
So what should the following code be?
bcmod('99', '100', 2);
The result is `'99.00'`.
I was expecting `'0.00'` for this. I thought that if gave `bcdiv()` and `bcmod()` the exact same arguments, their results would not contradict each other.
To me this is unexpected behaviour, how do you think?
Regards,
Saki
However, considering the behavior of `fdiv()` and `fmod()`, the current behavior of `bcmod()`may be correct and my thinking may be wrong...
Saki
I was probably tired. Please forget about this thread...
Saki