On Sep 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Ben Goetter wrote: > Brian Mastenbrook wrote: >> On the contrary, not providing bignums seems to be a relatively >> rare choice among implementations that purport to implement the >> R5RS without restriction or limitation. > Ironically (given its name), Bigloo was the last major holdout, but > even it has provided bignums for over a year now.
The latest release (3.2b), which I have installed, does not appear to support them. Is there an option I'm missing? I didn't mention Bigloo because it does not purport to implement the R5RS fully - tail calling and hygiene lexical syntactic bindings (`let- syntax') being two major documented points of deviation from the R5RS. I've run into both of these when trying to run code I've written on Bigloo. I phrased my statement very carefully for this reason; if an implementation does not implement fundamental requirements such as proper tail calling or lexical hygiene it probably doesn't matter much whether it would diverge from a bignum requirement in Thing One, since code written to John Cowan's proposed Thing One core won't run on that implementation in any event. -- Brian Mastenbrook [email protected] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
