Kon Lovett scripsit:
> Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards
> the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number,
> gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive
> list.
I agree. My complaint with Chicken in its c
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:26:03PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards
> the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number,
> gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive
> list
Hi,
Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards
the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number,
gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive
list.
I see Chicken at an architectural cross-roads. Rather than pilling
I agree that bignums do not automatically equal slower (fixnum)
performance. For example, see here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/CNS/interpreter-branch
Also, the Glasgow Haskell Compiler wiki has some notes on replacing GMP:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The point here is that it is patently obvious that in fact you *do* need
> larger exact integers than Chicken Scheme supports at present. Having
> inexact integers be used is, in my opinion, as wrong as accepting
> eight-byte blobs
Nicholas Indy Ray scripsit:
> Bignums are nice and all, but I hardly see it as a practical
> necessity. Plus if I had to choose between fix/flonums or bignums
> and slower number performance, I'd choose the prior, that is why I
> use chicken!
Bignums don't hurt performance much unless you use the
So "bignum" is really not a Scheme concept. It's a particular
implementation strategy. Let's talk about the Scheme data types here.
Chicken scheme allows exact integers of limited size, and the limit is
fairly small.
The point here is that it is patently obvious that in fact you *do* need
larger
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 00:57 -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> While not "comfortable" with 10.0 as a file position is understandable
> does anyone really use '(exact? some-filpos)'?
Huh? The point is that if the user wants (set-file-position
(inexact->exact n)) they should say so, and not have the sys
Bignums are nice and all, but I hardly see it as a practical necessity. Plus
if I had to choose between fix/flonums or bignums and slower number
performance, I'd choose the prior, that is why I use chicken!
Indy
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Kon Lovett scripsit:
>
> > I a
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> I am not defending the lack of bignums in Chicken. Just trying to
> understand the need.
I think at this point it's about what people expect from a Scheme.
Of the pre-R6RS implementations I tested, all of PLT, Gauche, MIT Scheme,
Gambit, Bigloo, Scheme48/scsh, Guile, Kawa
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:01 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
Not sure what is desired. I am guessing the full numeric tower is the
real concern.
No, I see no need to smuggle the full tower in by the back door.
What I'd like to see is the Chicken core (FFI and all) migrated from
pure f
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> Not sure what is desired. I am guessing the full numeric tower is the
> real concern.
No, I see no need to smuggle the full tower in by the back door.
What I'd like to see is the Chicken core (FFI and all) migrated from
pure fixnum+flonum to fixnum+flonum+bignum, providi
On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:30 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
Possible is adding a int64_t heap type. But involves hitting every
piece of code that any extension of the core number system would.
Indeed. If we're going to
13 matches
Mail list logo
