ADQL MOD

[Marco Molinaro]

I added the erratum anyway.
In the worst case I'll delete it.

I forgot one thing: should we add a paragraph on the expected
behaviour of the mod(x,y) to be sure the sign is correctly preserved?

Cheers,
     Marco

2016-07-07 9:18 GMT+02:00 Marco Molinaro <molinaro at oats.inaf.it>:
> Dave,
> thanks for the quick check and doc revision.
>
> 2016-07-06 8:58 GMT+02:00 Dave Morris <dave.morris at metagrid.co.uk>:
>>
>> On 2016-07-06 23:19, Patrick Dowler wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, I agree that the argument order is simply a bug/erratum for ADQL;
>>
>>
>> Fixed in next version
>> https://volute.g-vo.org/viewvc/volute/trunk/projects/dal/ADQL/ADQL.tex?r1=3385&r2=3456
>>
>> Do we need to publish an errata for 2.0 ?
>
> Since ADQL-2.1 is not yet in REC nor PR I suppose we'd have to put this as a
> proposed erratum to ADQL-2.0.
>
> If you agree I'll add this to the
>
> http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ADQL-2_0-Next
>
> "Proposed Errata" section including the mail thread reference.
>
> Cheers,
>      Marco
>
>>
>>> For the treatment of negative args, I would have thought the
>>> mathematical definition is clear (As Marco said: A%B=R is valid with R
>>> having the same sign as A). That should probably be specified clearly
>>> and test results (Cosmopterix) would be useful to tell implementers
>>> whether they have to do something.
>>
>>
>> Yep, working on it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Dave Morris
>> Software Developer
>> Wide Field Astronomy Unit
>> Institute for Astronomy
>> University of Edinburgh
>> --------
>>