- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:18:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> modular arithmetic with this notation as used in mathematics only applies to integers Fair enough, I had only seen it with integers, but I thought I could generalize it. > cotpi(x) = cot(πx), the cotangent of π times the argument. Oh I didn't know this notation. I see your point, but floating point numbers don't have a `1⁺` and a `1⁻`. So `cotpi(1)` could be either +∞ or −∞. See related #4101 about `tan()`. `tan(x + 180deg) = tan(x)` but in infinite cases we decided on `tan(-90deg) = −∞` and `tan(90deg) = +∞`. > I can’t think of any practical computation where a person would ever end up with `mod(x, ∞)` Sure, I don't think people will use an explicit ∞, but possibly they will use some calculation which may end up being ∞ in certain cases. > I think it would be better to just let mod(x, ∞) = NaN regardless. NaN is reasonable for negative x, but not that sure about positive x. Intuitively I would expect `x`, though I could live with NaN. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4723#issuecomment-584095969 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 10 February 2020 12:18:45 UTC