On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> There are currently 19 bignum vtable slots, which take a BIGNUM* value
> argument of some kind. These are IMHO useless. We don't have a Parrot
> basic type like BIGNUM.
>
> A BIGNUM (BigInteger, BigNumber) will just be a PMC, AFAIK.
>
> So I think these entries should just get deleted.
I'd planned on having bignums be a base data type the same way that
strings were, since I couldn't see a reasonable way to handle them and do
lossless interchange at the lowest levels otherwise.
I think we need to stare at this a bit and work out what we want to
guarantee, at which point I'd hope (though not necessarily expect...) that
the need or lack of need for these would be clear.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
