Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 8:45 PM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Nope -- we don't have bigints. :) >> >>Pardon, sir? > We've got the big number code, but I don't see much reason to > distinguish between integers and non-integers at this level -- the > only difference is exponent twiddling. Ah, ok. BigInt as a degenerated BigNum. I still prefer the notion that adding or multiplying to integers give a BigInt on overflow. While at num vs int: do we automatically downgrade to int again? 6.0/2.0 = 3.0 or 3 ? leo
