[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue FIXNUM-NONPORTABLE (Version 1)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue FIXNUM-NONPORTABLE (Version 1)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 88 15:38 EDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <880915-011455-2083@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
I'm neutral on FIXNUM-NONPORTABLE:TIGHTEN-DEFINITION. I'd be equally
happy with such alternatives as retaining the status quo or eliminating
the FIXNUM type but keeping a way to query what is the most efficient
range of integers. The phrase `use the FIXNUM type specifier in a way
similar to how the "int" type is used in C' really puts me off, since
I have been shafted innumerable times by C's failure to specify any
portable meaning for the "int" type.