oh, but I can't see it, so you just did it now, right?

I know they differ for negative values input, never knew why the reason..

expr also has a "%" function that behaves in the same way as the [%] object, to make things more confusing, a "fmod" function in expr also behaves in the same was as "%", but for float arguments, and not like vanilla's [mod]

in max, [%~] (or [modulo~]) will behave the same way as "fmod" in expr, that is modulo for float arguments, which is also in agreement to pd vanilla's % - only that pd's is for ints.

With all that, what I mean to ask and say is that I can't see what's wrong with [%] - the odd one out seems to be [mod].

what do you say?

cheers