Re: Should logior (and friends) operate only on inums?

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" wrote:
> > 
> > Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
> > 
> > > "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > It's a tough call;  I think of some weighting between amount of code
> > > > that its add relative to its general utility.
> > >
> > > I don't think so.  If you have code for doing bignum bit twiddling it
> > > should definitely be in the core.  It is not totally urgent to fix it
> > > but it is still a bug not to support bignums.  Anything else would
> > > earn a golden `8.3' award, in my opinion.
> > 
> > Cute.  :-) I don't feel strongly about this, but in my dream
> > interpreter, all support for bignums would be an extension, since I've
> > never used them.
> 
> Scwm's fvwm module support depends on the fact that all values up to
> the size of an unsigned long can be represented as a Scheme number.
> This requires bignum support because immediate numbers can only hold
> 30 bits, due to the need for a type tag.
> 
> So you're wrong, you've used them without even knowing it. That's
> what's so nice about bignums. :-)

I stand very much corrected.  Although I sometimes wish that Scwm's
fvwm2 module support weren't good.... then I'd have an excuse to write a 
native pager, etc. :-)

Greg