Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > 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 don't know. Your original note prompted me go to ChangeLog of Bigloo, a significant implementation that I thought I knew did not support bignums, where a series of changes from March 2008 onwards claim to implement, then correct bugs in, its bignum support. I don't use Bigloo myself. > > 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 was under the impression that both of those points had been brought into compliance at some point in the last decade. But again, I don't know for certain.
Ben _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
