> I'm not sure why you removed the floor initially or how it relates to > arrays (that change has been reverted afterwards).
The only number type in JS is supposed to be double-float, so I assumed array reference would handle rounding, but it doesn't. > I was motivated by the original ps output not handling float > arguments too well. I'm quite happy to use your suggestion > of (* some-float (random)) for such situations, so perhaps > there was no need for the patch I sent. On the other hand, > that patch is a textbook example of a use case for > define-ps-compiler-macro, if we ever get them :) Even then the big runtime case would remain. > Yong. > PS: Is (funcall (@ ...) ...) to be preferred over ((@ ...) ...) now? > There are still quite a few places with this in the current > source. Yes and yes. I've decided against deprecating the Scheme-style funcall though. Vladimir > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
