At Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:33:06 +0000, Noel Welsh wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > Also, you're using `unsafe-fx...' on numbers that haven't been checked
> > to be fixnums (i.e., `exact-nonnegative-integer?' does not imply
> > fixnum). I think you should just use generic arithmetic.
>
> You can't allocate more than a fixnum number of bytes, I believe. So
> start and stop must be fixnums if they're to be valid.
Yes, but the `unsafe-fx' operations that I'm concerned about are the ones
checking whether an index is valid:
(unless (and (exact-nonnegative-integer? start) (unsafe-fx< start len))
(raise-type-error who (format "exact non-negative integer in [0,~a)" len)
start))
(unless (and (integer? stop) (unsafe-fx<= -1 stop) (unsafe-fx<= stop len))
(raise-type-error who (format "exact integer in [-1,~a] or #f" len) stop))
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
