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

*To*: COMMON-LISP@sail.stanford.edu*Subject*: Bigosities*From*: preece%mycroft@gswd-vms.ARPA (Scott E. Preece)*Date*: Mon, 20 Apr 87 07:55:24 CST

primerd!DOUG@ENX.Prime.PDN > The concept that 64 bits could be construed as a reasonable integer > limit is silly since there are many hardware architectures where a basic > arithmetic operation can be done on 64 bits in both integer and floating > point. Also 64 bits is only ~21 decimal digits. ---------- What has the size of the basic hardware operation size got to do with anything? Frankly, as long as the standard doesn't specify a minimum size for bignum coverage, I would say 64 bits would be conforming. I have never done any Lisp coding myself (outside of tests of our implementation) which required numbers bigger than 64 bits -- if I were going out shopping for a CL for my own use, that restriction wouldn't bother me. The most important thing is that each implementation make its limits clear, so that the porter knows if she has a chance of making the port in less than geological time and so that the shopper knows whether the implementation is suitable for the proposed use. I don't really care whether the limits are encoded as constants or printed on paper, but I would like the standard to require that they be available and that they be separated into representational limits and space limits. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana uucp: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece arpa: preece@gswd-vms

- Prev by Date:
**Pavel's reply** - Next by Date:
**MULTIPLE-VALUE-OR, and Consing** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Bigosities** - Next by thread:
**Pavel's reply** - Index(es):