On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 04:17:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > The issue isn't support, it's efficiency. Since we're not worrying about > loss of precision (as we will be upconverting as needed) the next issue is > speed, and that's where we want things to be in a platform convenient size. I think I've managed to argue myself around into a position I didn't intend to take. :> I'm not particularly arguing for Perl using any given size of integer. My initial point was just that you are allowed to assume that there will be 16- and 32-bit ints available if you want them. I'm a C standard weenie, and I tend to be picky about the language. On a secondary note, I would prefer to be able to assume at least 32 bits worth of precision in a default Perl scalar -- if this happens by magical upconversion into bigints, that's fine by me! - Damien
- standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Philip Newton
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Damien Neil
- Re: standard representations Hildo Biersma
- Re: standard representations Damien Neil
- Re: standard representations Hildo Biersma
- Re: standard representations Damien Neil
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Damien Neil
- Re: standard representatio... Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: standard representatio... Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representatio... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: standard representatio... Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representatio... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representatio... Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representatio... Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representatio... Dan Sugalski