octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: integer arithmetics


From: Jaroslav Hajek
Subject: Re: integer arithmetics
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:30:58 +0200

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:

>
> I'll resend an update.
>


And here it is.

Btw, further to 64-bit integers, I was thinking about hacking the
parser in such a way that expressions of the form "intXX(<integer
literal>)" would not be interpreted the current way double constant +
conversion, but instead formed directly an integer constant. The
advantage, apart from maybe a slight speed-up, would be that large
64-bit integer constants could be entered properly in the interpreter
as int64(4611686018427387905) without losing precision (currently,
there is no easy way to get such a constant).

The problem is what to do when user locally redefines int64 (unlikely
and maybe a bug, but can happen).
Should we:
1. ignore it (faster - things can be handled directly in the parser
with little work)
2. check for it (a special tree_expression subclass that checks
whether the function has been redefined, then does what is right.
Probably slower, but hard to guess how much slower.)

I think that if we clearly document 1., then it may be OK.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]