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

*To*: Scott_Fahlman@SEF-PMAX.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU*Subject*: Re: small integers*From*: moon (David A. Moon)*Date*: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:17:28 EDT*Cc*: info-dylan*Full-name*: David Moon

> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 02:33:59 -0400 > From: Scott_Fahlman@SEF-PMAX.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU > .... At times you > seem to favor the "correct" Common Lisp approach, and at other times you > seem to accept the idea of an overflow error under certain conditions. I think I have consistently said that I favor an overflow error when it is a type error, that is, when it can be shown that if a bignum were created from the overflow it would cause a type error before the next observable side-effect. I think (but I'm not sure about this part) that an overflow in the middle of a complex arithmetic expression can often be shown either to cause an overflow at the end (and thus we can reason backwards that it is a type error) or be handled by using increased precision for the intermediate results in the arithmetic expression, without going beyond the precision the machine supports. Think about (* (+ x y) z) where we know they are all small integers and z is not 0 or -1, and the result is being fed to something that only accepts small integers. More later.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: small integers***From:*Scott_Fahlman@SEF1.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU

- Prev by Date:
**Add** - Next by Date:
**Re: associative methods** - Previous by thread:
**Re: small integers** - Next by thread:
**Re: small integers** - Index(es):