This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: SCM_VALIDATE_...
- To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Subject: Re: SCM_VALIDATE_...
- From: Russell McManus <russell dot mcmanus at msdw dot com>
- Date: 26 May 2000 08:10:21 -0400
- Cc: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>, Jim Blandy <jimb at savonarola dot red-bean dot com>, Guile Mailing List <guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005261106540.7713-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> <xy7ya4xr6mq.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
>
> > I'm a little sceptical about whether it makes sense to freeze integer. I
> > understand the point about fixnums and bignums, because these are leaves
> > in the class tree corresponding to implementations. As I understand it, a
> > class tree might then look as follows:
> >
> > <number>
> > <complex>
> > <comp-rep*>
> > <real>
> > <float*>
> > <double*>
> > <rational>
> > <rat-rep*>
> > <integer>
> > <bignum*>
> > <fixnum*>
> >
> > Types with * denote representations, some of which don't even exist
> > yet.
>
> We *could* do it like that, but it seems so complex. I think I'd
> prefer it if <complex> and <comp-rep*> was the same class, etc.
>
> I'd like to postpone this decision, though.
This is a place where close examination of the Common Lisp Hyperspec
would serve us well. The CL community has already thought through the
tradeoffs involved with designing the number type hierarchy; we should
at the very least consider that design first.
-russ
--
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect."
-- Mark Twain