Re: [Chicken-users] 32 bit integers?

[Kon Lovett]

On May 22, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Dan Muresan wrote:

>
<snip>
> > Would the native integers be part of the numeric tower? If so this  
> > is a major piece of work. If disjoint from the number type then  
> > fairly straightforward to create but of limited utility.
>
> I'm not really sure what "disjoint" means here... They would be  
> available without (require-extension numbers). There would be  
> separate functions native+, native* etc. OCaml has native integers  
> for this very reason.

Disjoint means "(of two or more sets) having no elements in common"  
here. If the "native integer" type is a subtype of number then not  
disjoint. I asked to see where you are going with the suggestion.  
While many Schemes have something like Chicken's fx/fp procedures  
(R6RS for example) they are domain restricted but take subtypes of  
number and return a subtype of number. So (+ 1 (fx+ 1 2)) is legal.  
But should (+ 1 (native+ 1 2)) be legal?

> Best,
> Dan