On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin Reid wrote: > >> FWIW: Common Lisp has rigorously transparent (that is, you cannot observe >> the machine word size) bigints and quite a few binary operations defined on >> them, so it's where I personally would look for precedent on such questions. >> > > (a) we don't have a bignum type yet; (b) we want to JIT to concrete > machine types where possible. (b) does not require clz32 vs. clz64 in my > view, because of type inference or AOT type-checking (asm.js). But we don't > want to require bignums. > Yes, but choices which work for bignum also work for "I am working on 32-bit (or 8-bit or whatever) values which happen to be stored in a larger (53- or 64-bit) field, and the length of the larger field is irrelevant to the task".
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
