🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27159@nigel.ee.udel.edu> carroll@udel.edu (Mark Carroll <MC>) writes:
>In article <675@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (sous-realiste) writes:
>]]_not_ a feature of our programs.  If I declare
>]]	var x: 12223495872309457 .. 2345230549872039458720983475;
>]]then any compiler worth its salt ought to be able to figure out how many
>]]of its nasty little boxes to use, and how to exploit whatever instructions
>]
>]Do you have any idea what this does to the context sensitive grammar of
>]the language? Well, most people don't use CS grammars, so probably not,
>]but it leads to an incredible of snarl of constants, constant expressions,
>]and constant values you would not believe. Or you would if tried to write
>]the compilers based on things like Ada LRM.
>
>This seems to be nothing more than Pascal like subranges combined with 
>Lisp-like bignums. Bignums are more complicated to implement, but not
>horrible. Subranges are completely trivial. And I completely fail to see
>what deep and profound affects they're going to have on the grammar. Lisp
>has dealt with Bignums in the syntax for years and years; I see nothing
>in the addition of bignums to subranges that complicates it.

And Common Lisp indeed has subrange types.  If I set X to
2345230549872039458720983474, and ask

(TYPEP X '(INTEGER 12223495872309457 2345230549872039458720983475))

the result is T.  I can even declare X to be of this subrange if I wish:

(DECLARE (TYPE (INTEGER 12223495872309457 2345230549872039458720983475)
		X))


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.