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

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:26:03PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards  
> the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number,  
> gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive  
> list.
> 
> I see Chicken at an architectural cross-roads. Rather than pilling  
> capability into the core perhaps we should consider something that  
> qualifies as "it's all chickens down."

I don't think modularization for the sake of modularization is a good
idea, but I do agree that a modular number system for example would be
a decent solution to the problem we're facing right now.  If we can
make a cheap and generic system to do it for all types, go for it, but
don't force it.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth

pgpc_FKs003RZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature