Kevin Reid wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.com>> 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".
Agreed, for integral types.
I remember the Harbison & Steele C book, lots of Common Lispy names,
like population_count() ;-).
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
