Question

I'm brand new to Erlang. How do you do modulo (get the remainder of a division)? It's % in most C-like languages, but that designates a comment in Erlang.

Several people answered with rem, which in most cases is fine. But I'm revisiting this because now I need to use negative numbers and rem gives you the remainder of a division, which is not the same as modulo for negative numbers.

Was it helpful?

Solution

In Erlang, 5 rem 3. gives 2, and -5 rem 3. gives -2. If I understand your question, you would want -5 rem 3. to give 1 instead, since -5 = -2 * 3 + 1.

Does this do what you want?

mod(X,Y) when X > 0 -> X rem Y;
mod(X,Y) when X < 0 -> Y + X rem Y;
mod(0,Y) -> 0.

OTHER TIPS

The erlang modulo operator is rem

Eshell V5.6.4  (abort with ^G)
1> 97 rem 10.
7

I used the following in elixir:

defp mod(x,y) when x > 0, do: rem(x, y);
defp mod(x,y) when x < 0, do: rem(x, y) + y;
defp mod(0,_y), do: 0

Please don't downvote this because it's another language than the question. We all live the dream, because we all have the beam.

According to this blog post, it's rem.

The above Y + X rem Y seems to be wrong: either (Y + X) rem Y or Y + (X rem Y) yield incorrect results. Ex: let Y=3. If X=-4, the first form returns -1, if X=-3 the second form returns 3, none of which is in [0;3[.

I use this instead:

% Returns the positive remainder of the division of X by Y, in [0;Y[. 
% In Erlang, -5 rem 3 is -2, whereas this function will return 1,  
% since -5 =-2 * 3 + 1.

modulo(X,Y) when X > 0 ->   
   X rem Y;

modulo(X,Y) when X < 0 ->   
    K = (-X div Y)+1,
    PositiveX = X + K*Y,
    PositiveX rem Y;

modulo(0,_Y) -> 
    0.

Erlang remainder not works with negative numbers, so you have to write your own function for negative parameters.

mod(A, B) when A > 0 -> A rem B;
mod(A, B) when A < 0 -> mod(A+B, B); 
mod(0, _) -> 0.

% console:
3> my:mod(-13, 5).
2

The accepted answer is wrong.

rem behaves exactly like the % operator in modern C. It uses truncated division.

The accepted answer fails for X<0 and Y<0. Consider mod(-5,-3):

C:                     -5 % -3 == -2
rem:                 -5 rem -3 == -2
Y + X rem Y:    -3 + -5 rem -3 == -5 !! wrong !!

The alternative implementations for the modulo operator use floored division and Euclidean division. The results for those are

flooring division:   -5 mod -3 == -2
euclidean division:  -5 mod -3 == 1

So

Y + X rem Y

doesn't reproduce any modulo operator for X < 0 and Y < 0.

And rem works as expected -- it's using truncated division.

Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with StackOverflow
scroll top