This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?

To: "Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>
Subject: Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow at alum dot mit dot edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:25:31 -0800
CC: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001171647520.741-100000@goo.dev.mt.lv> <388385BB.3BC71901@alum.mit.edu> <qrrzou4bdg2.fsf@clavicle.cs.washington.edu>

"Greg J. Badros" wrote:
> 
> It's now back to working on all unsigned longs (I never meant to change
> it).  Bignums were never supported, and I won't be writing that patch
> (and I'm not even convinced that that should be in the core, actually).

I don't think the logical math operations should be in the core in
general, ultimately. But IMO there should be one version that does
it generally in only one place. Would it make sense for `+' to support
bignums, but not the version in the core?

 - Maciej

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?
  - From: Greg J. Badros

References:
- Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?
  - From: Janis Dzerins
- Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?
  - From: Maciej Stachowiak
- Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?
  - From: Greg J. Badros

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]