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

*To*: zilla@ccrl.nj.nec.com (John Lewis)*Subject*: Re: small integers, numerical efficiency*From*: moon (David A. Moon)*Date*: Thu, 29 Oct 92 15:56:46 EST*Cc*: info-dylan@cambridge.apple.com

> From: zilla@ccrl.nj.nec.com (John Lewis) > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 14:37:25 EST > .... > David Moon (i recall) commented that he would rather see > floating point removed from Dylan than have a half-baked numeric > system like that in C. .... I did not say those last four words. What I said was that I think a Dylan implementation would be better off leaving out floating point entirely than putting in floating point but not doing it efficiently. Then from a language point of view, we could decide that few implementations will want to bother doing floating point efficiently, and therefore remove it from the language, or we could make it optional in the language, or we could leave the language the way it is and some implementations could announce that they only support a subset. Personally I prefer making it optional over either extreme. Floating point is not the only thing in the Dylan book that ought to be optional. Also, C's integer numeric system is half-baked, but its floating-point numeric system is not particularly bad. I say enough bad things about C that you don't need to misquote me disparaging a part of C that doesn't bother me!

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: small integers, numerical efficiency***From:*kanderso@BBN.COM

- Prev by Date:
**Re: small integers, numerical efficiency** - Next by Date:
**Re: small integers, numerical efficiency** - Previous by thread:
**Re: small integers, numerical efficiency** - Next by thread:
**Re: small integers, numerical efficiency** - Index(es):