On Monday, 31 December 2012 at 17:47:36 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Monday, 31 December 2012 at 17:43:34 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 01:18:37 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
1. Allow ranges to return BigInt for length.
2. Allow ranges like this but assert when .length overflows.
3. Allow ranges like this and just allow .length to overflow
dangerously.
4. Do not allow ranges like this.
Option 5: Incorporate (emulation code?) for cent/ucent, then
consider that the same as 1 but returning cent rather than
BitInt.
Two problems with this:
1. Still complicates range code (have to accomodate for both
size_t and ucent return value for .length).
2. ucent probably isn't enough either for these sorts of ranges.
Perhaps, but having cent/ucent available would make a few people
happy at least, although except for a few cases with databases
and encryption it may not be that important right now.
I remember trying to learn C/C++ and trying to do a very very
simple code to get the number 1 doubled something like 100 times.
After 31 it went to garbage (hey I was 14 at the time, god that
was a long time ago). It took me a while to understand the
problem.
I ended up re-writing the whole thing in assembly that took 101
bytes (COM file) and could double the number as many times as I
wanted.
