Re: Intervals crash

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
>> Quite the opposite.  I'm speaking from pure experience: it worked very
>> well for XEmacs.  I happen to have a good memory for theoretical
>> arguments, so I passed them on.  I'm sorry that offended you.
>
> "unsigned good or evil" is such a hoary old religious issue that any
> unasked-for advocacy is likely to get you lumped in with the freaks,
> simply out of habit on the part of the listener...

That gained bit of range turns out to be worth the pain rather rarely.
Since Emacs integers are _signed_ anyway, I have severe doubts that
EMACS_UINT will actually _ever_ give us an extended range that is not
defective to start with.  The Emacs data structure from which it is made
_is_ signed.

-- 
David Kastrup