On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 15:00, ptho wrote:
> I believe there is also a platform/compiler problem with printf's real
> number handling: before the changes become part of the ipl, please check
> against the Windows, UNIX, and Linux versions of Unicon.
>
Wow - I hope not - printf.icn is pure Icon and should be the same
on all those platforms! Do you have anything specific to look
for? (Or were you thinking of the case where someone rewrites
it to call C's sprintf? - if Michael Glass' code checks out
there's really no need to go that route.)
That being said, I do see possible problems, mostly in the octal and
hexidecimal conversions, where it looks as though a 32-bit integer
size is assumed. This is no longer true now that Icon and
Unicon have builtin support for bignums and should probably
be revisited. There's a related issue in the real-number support
(integer(x) cannot be used to decide if the number is so big it
should be put into scientific notation anymore), but that
problem isn't platform or compiler dependent.
--
Steve Wampler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
