On 6/16/08, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM, naruto canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> hi >> >> I thinks there is a bug in big numbers extension or somewhere else... >> I am not sure. >> > > From a quick peek I can infer at least the following: the compiler > does currently not support bignum literals, the large exact > number in "random-parameters" is silently coerced into an > inexact number, so "random" will always return an inexact > result. Replacing "9999..." with (string->number "999...") should > help.
actually I find another way to trigger the bug, having nothing to do with bignum literals: other schemes: ;; (factorial n) ;; test memorized recursion (newline) (factorial 55) ;'done ;12696403353658275925965100847566516959580321051449436762275840000000000000 chicken: #<unspecified> 1.26964033536583e+73 > > > cheers, > felix > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
