On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 19:20 -0700, Kon Lovett wrote: > On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:30 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > >> Kon Lovett scripsit: > >> > >>> Possible is adding a int64_t heap type. But involves hitting every > >>> piece of code that any extension of the core number system would. > >> > >> Indeed. If we're going to do that, I'd rather go with core bignums > >> after all, perhaps from LibTomMath (which is dedicated to the public > >> domain by its author), and dispose of the issue once and for all. > > > > Something like this is surely my preference too. > > Not sure what is desired. I am guessing the full numeric tower is the > real concern. If only large-ish integers then the current use of > integer flonum limit of +-9007199254740992 should be good for awhile.
There's no need to implement everything at once... In this case, I'm saying that rather than accept the *wrong* argument (inexact integers), we have a need for larger exact integers than we can support at present, and the right thing to do is add larger exact integers, not allow a function which should accept only exact integers to start taking inexact ones. Thomas _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
