Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Bignums in core

[Nicholas \"Indy\" Ray]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden> wrote:
> There's no need to implement everything at once...
>
> In this case, I'm saying that rather than accept the *wrong* argument
> (inexact integers), we have a need for larger exact integers than we can
> support at present, and the right thing to do is add larger exact
> integers, not allow a function which should accept only exact integers
>  to start taking inexact ones.

This is a dynamic and pragmatic language. If we were going for a type-safe statically compiled language I'd tend to agree. But in a dynamic language, this simple fix will allow problems to be solved (dealing with large files) in a fast (both in performance, and in time to get in the compiler) with little lost, and only in idealism.

Indy