Alright. Thanks everyone for the convincing answers. I will keep the
current behavior and I will document that operations may be slower than
could be expected.
Cheers,
Sylvain
On 16/11/2019 12:04, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 15.11.2019, 17:04 +0100 schrieb Sylvain Henry:
How
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 15.11.2019, 17:04 +0100 schrieb Sylvain Henry:
> However integer-gmp and
> integer-simple fake two's complement encoding for Bits operations.
just a small factoid: the Coq standard library provide the same
semantics. I’d lean towards leaving it as it is. If someone need the
> Question is: do we need/want to keep this behavior?
I think we really do want to keep this behavior.
And not just because I for one have a decent cross-section of code that
would just become horribly broken (and would have to find some way to
jerry-rig the existing behavior anyways) if we rando
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM Sylvain Henry wrote:
> Question is: do we need/want to keep this behavior?
Yes ;-)
I chose it quite intentionally after benchmarking and carefully examining
various approaches, and with the intent to use a common-denominator
representation which would be easy to
ssage-
| From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Sylvain Henry
| Sent: 15 November 2019 16:04
| To: ghc-devs
| Subject: Question about negative Integers
|
| Hi GHC devs,
|
| As some of you may know, I am working on fixing several longstanding
| issues with GHC's big numbers implementatio
Hi GHC devs,
As some of you may know, I am working on fixing several longstanding
issues with GHC's big numbers implementation (Integer, Natural). You can
read more about it here:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/hsyl20/ghc/raw/hsyl20-integer/libraries/ghc-bignum/docs/ghc-bignum.rst
To summarize,
