>> It could. Should it? C just truncates. I dunno. > > I think it should. This will be an extra help in detecting bugs; if a > user accidentally passes a flonum where a fixnum is expected that's > always a bug, unless the flonum is the result of a fixnum overflow. And > in the latter case, this should always be an integer value. To catch > accidental misuse the additional check is useful.
The flonum/fixnum distinction is a distinction between types. But in this case it is a property independent of type. Since we are passing values to C anyway, I don't see a reason to add extra checks in this case - the values pass the Scheme/C boundary and might as well be treated using C semantics. I also don't see how this might prevent bugs, and what type of bugs these would be. >> I get cramps thinking of all the work that would have to go into such >> a project. > > Yeah, me too. But it's good to hear you aren't against it per se. > I might give this a try sometime. There are some improvements I want > to make in the numbers egg first, which then should make integration > into core simpler. I know the numbers egg improvements have been slow > going, but it's a fine goal for the new year ;) I *am* against it per se, but if the performance and complexity impact is acceptable, then it would be reasonable to just ignore my whining. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
