[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] bug in big numbers or somewhere
From: |
naruto canada |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] bug in big numbers or somewhere |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:21:20 +0000 |
On 6/16/08, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM, naruto canada <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>> hi
>>
>> I thinks there is a bug in big numbers extension or somewhere else...
>> I am not sure.
>>
>
> From a quick peek I can infer at least the following: the compiler
> does currently not support bignum literals, the large exact
> number in "random-parameters" is silently coerced into an
> inexact number, so "random" will always return an inexact
> result. Replacing "9999..." with (string->number "999...") should
> help.
actually I find another way to trigger the bug, having nothing to do
with bignum literals:
other schemes:
;; (factorial n)
;; test memorized recursion
(newline)
(factorial 55)
;'done
;12696403353658275925965100847566516959580321051449436762275840000000000000
chicken:
#<unspecified>
1.26964033536583e+73
>
>
> cheers,
> felix
>