[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu*Subject*: more on BOGUS-FIXNUMS*From*: sandra%cdr@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)*Date*: Tue, 19 Jul 88 14:49:19 MDT

Apologies if this is a repeat -- I sent this message out a few days ago but it seems to have dropped into the bit bucket. I'm willing to write up a new proposal on this issue, but I'm not sure what direction the committee wants it to go in. ---- Since it appears that nobody besides me (and Stan) likes my previous proposal on this issue and that I'll have to come up with something less radical that is more acceptable to the rest of the committee, I thought it would be useful to enumerate some of the possibilities. I realize there are still two other issues which would still have to be addressed when turning any of these into a real proposal, namely whether to retain MOST-BLETCHEROUS-FIXNUM :-), and whether the BIGNUM type specifier should remain and whether it must still be a non-empty set which is disjoint from FIXNUM. #0 (what CLtL says): - there is no particular type specifier defined for "small integers". - the FIXNUM type specifier is defined but nothing is said about its range. - FIXNUMs are required to have a more efficient representation than non-FIXNUMs. #1 (my original proposal): - there is no particular type specifier defined for "small integers". - the FIXNUM type specifier goes away. - user-defined integer subrange types use the most efficient representation possible in a given implementation. #2 (Gail Zacharias's counter-proposal): - there is no particular type specifier defined for "small integers". - the FIXNUM type specifier is defined to be a superset of (SIGNED-BYTE n), for some value of "n" which has yet to be decided but that we all agree upon. - FIXNUMs are not required to coincide with or be a subset of the set of integers which are represented most efficiently. #3 (change CLtL's "typically" to a firm requirement): - there is no particular type specifier defined for "small integers". - FIXNUMs must be a supertype of (SIGNED-BYTE n). - FIXNUMs are defined to be the set of integers which are represented most efficiently. #4 (dumb, but here for completeness): - there is no particular type specifier defined for "small integers". - the FIXNUM type specifier is defined to be equivalent to (SIGNED-BYTE n). - FIXNUMs are required to be a subset of the integers which are represented most efficiently. #5: (Kent Pitman's suggestion): - a new SMALL-INTEGER type specifier is introduced which is equivalent to (SIGNED-BYTE n). - the FIXNUM type specifier goes away. - nothing is guaranteed about the efficiency of representation of SMALL-INTEGERs. #6 (similar to #3): - a new SMALL-INTEGER type specifier is introduced which is equivalent to (SIGNED-BYTE n). - the set of FIXNUMs is required to be a superset of SMALL-INTEGERs. - FIXNUMs are defined as the set of integers with the most efficient representation. (This implies that SMALL-INTEGERS are also guaranteed to be efficient.) #7 (a cross between #0 and #5): - a new SMALL-INTEGER type specifier is introduced which is equivalent to (SIGNED-BYTE n). - the FIXNUM type specifier remains but the range of FIXNUMs is left undefined, as is the relationship between FIXNUM and SMALL-INTEGER. - FIXNUMs are defined as the set of integers with the most efficient representation. Nothing is guaranteed about the efficiency of SMALL-INTEGERs. Comments, anyone? -Sandra -------

**Follow-Ups**:**more on BOGUS-FIXNUMS***From:*Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

- Prev by Date:
**SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE, version 2** - Next by Date:
**more on BOGUS-FIXNUMS** - Previous by thread:
**SUBTYPEP-TOO-VAGUE, version 2** - Next by thread:
**more on BOGUS-FIXNUMS** - Index(es):