[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
- To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Re: (declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
- From: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1986 03:18:00 -0000
- Cc: RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU, Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
- Cc: masinter.PA@XEROX.COM
- In-reply-to: <860723124252.9.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Sender: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 12:42 EDT
From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
To: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>,
David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: (declare (type fixnum ---)) considered etc.
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1986 10:39 EDT
From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Well, I had previously believed that the FIXNUM declaration was
reasonable, but this was based on the erroneous belief that an array
index must be a fixnum. If it is fact the case that some
implementations have small (2^16) fixnums, then this is a serious
source of non-portability. A possible solution would be to have an
INDEX type which is (INTEGER 0 (ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT)).
My solution is to write (integer 0 #.array-dimension-limit).
It works just fine.
With such CL constants, I don't see the need for a FIXNUM type specifier.