"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>[...]
> So if you *knew* you were dealing with
> 16-bit unsigned integers, you could say
>
> my uint16 @numarray;
>
> and it would generate the optimal code for such an array. You could
> instead say:
>
> my Int @numarray is ctype("unsigned short int"
On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 01:10 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I still don't understand why we want to go to all this hassle of
completing a vast list primitives to support mappings onto languages
and architectures that have yet to be invented. I still prefer to keep
things simple:
my Number $a
Dave Whipp writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave Whipp writes:
> > >
> > > You can rename the types if you want; but properties are a better
> > > representation of constraints than type names: more precise, and more
> > > flexible.
> > >
> >
> > but types *are* properties
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Whipp writes:
>
> You can rename the types if you want; but properties are a better
> representation of constraints than type names: more precise, and more
> flexible.
>
but types *are* properties .
arcadi
True :-(
But I think my examples somehow withst
Dave Whipp writes:
>
> You can rename the types if you want; but properties are a better
> representation of constraints than type names: more precise, and more
> flexible.
>
but types *are* properties .
arcadi
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Does someone from internals want to take on the task of finalizing this
list? We need to decide if we want to support none, some, or all of
these types/aliases.
-
The Full List of Numeric Types
In addition to the standard int and num, there are a great number of
