On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:25:15PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > 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.)
Good catch, that's just an oversight. Both should use small-bignum?, and of course that means the bignum? check should be restored. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
