>yes, but there is a difference between signed and unsigned int. >an integer larger than 2147483648 and smaller than 4294967296 >does not fit into INT_TYPE
It does on a 64-bit machine. In short, adding a new pike type for "unsigned INT_TYPE" would create lots of work for rather small benefits. You can still use 4294967296 distinct integer values on a 32-bit machine without involving bignums. If you have a use-case where you would benefit from unsigned INT_TYPEs, I can show you how to rewrite it to benefit from signed INT_TYPEs instead.
