This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
William D Clinger wrote:
In either case, I think flonums should be in the base language, because most hardware now supports them much more efficiently than they could be implemented in alibrary module.
Hmm. Looking around my office, I see a router, a network-attached storage device, and a cell phone that all have ARM CPUs without FPUs.
Taking this further, I can imagine someone wanting to implement a system that has bignums and is optimized for executable size (or simplicity) rather then execution speed. Perhaps I just have an over-active imagination. They might make the decision to force all integers to be bignums, which eliminates type dispatch for integers and thereby reduces the size of the executable. So, why force fixnums into the language? From the point of view of the user, they are merely a detail of most implementations.
There is certainly room for different opinions about this, of course. One purpose of SRFI-77 was to gain a sense of the community's opinion on this and other issues.
Yes, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to comment.
No. Consider fx+, which as defined in SRFI-77 performs addition modulo hi-lo+1.
Okay. However, I do not find the semantics of fx+ to be especially compelling. It depends on an accident of the hardware (the number of bits in a fixnum) rather than some more general property of numbers. It may well be useful to the implementor of the library, but since the implementor of the library is likely to be the implementor of the whole system, if they need it they can define it.
Regards, Alan -- Dr Alan Watson Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México