Hi folks, Good discussion, thank you Peter and Lemon for considering this.
> diff --git a/lfa2.scm b/lfa2.scm > index 0fd4612..4c7ff84 100644 > --- a/lfa2.scm > +++ b/lfa2.scm > @@ -173,17 +173,14 @@ > ;; a simplified variant of the one in scrutinizer.scm > (cond ((string? lit) 'string) > ((symbol? lit) 'symbol) > + ;; Do not assume fixnum width matches target platform's! > + ((or (big-fixnum? lit) > + (bignum? lit)) > + 'integer) > ((fixnum? lit) 'fixnum) > - ((bignum? lit) 'bignum) > ((flonum? lit) 'float) > ((ratnum? lit) 'ratnum) > ((cplxnum? lit) 'cplxnum) You use `bignum?' for the non-fixnum part of the width check here in lfa2.scm, but `small-bignum?' in scrutinizer.scm -- why is that? (This is in the chicken-5 patch.) > diff --git a/scrutinizer.scm b/scrutinizer.scm > index cf7c6ad..2d63f19 100644 > --- a/scrutinizer.scm > +++ b/scrutinizer.scm > @@ -196,16 +196,15 @@ > (define (constant-result lit) > (cond ((string? lit) 'string) > ((symbol? lit) 'symbol) > + ;; Do not assume fixnum width matches target platform's! > + ((or (big-fixnum? lit) > + (small-bignum? lit)) > + 'integer) > ((fixnum? lit) 'fixnum) > - ((flonum? lit) 'float) ; Why not "flonum", for consistency? > ((bignum? lit) 'bignum) > + ((flonum? lit) 'float) ; Why not "flonum", for consistency? > ((ratnum? lit) 'ratnum) > ((cplxnum? lit) 'cplxnum) Cheers, Evan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
