alanruttenberg at gmail.com
Tue Mar 16 15:41:44 UTC 2010
On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:47 AM, dmiles at users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> This is because ABCL:
> Fixnum => int
> Bignum => BigInteger
> ABCL does not have a 'long' type so it is normal workaround to produce
> a new 'long in your case.
> So depends who is desiring: There is no real spec other than Allegro
> But Allegro spec here is lossy..
> (meaning if you went from a Lisp Bignum->Java->Lisp.. the number would
> scaled back to Long.MAX_VALUE) So their spec is even more
> It would be possible that when the Bignum is within normal java long
> range the javaInstance() could return a java.lang.Long instead.
> Does everyone think this would be better behavior than current ABCL and Allegro?
I'm thinking it would be. However, given that there is a workaround I wouldn't put it as high priority - more as a cleanup.
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
> <alanruttenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am I right to observe that abcl coerces any number > fixnum size to bigint?
>> I'm having trouble calling a java method that takes a long. I seem to
>> have worked around it calling the method with (new 'long
>> "9223372036854775807") rather than 9223372036854775807 .
>> Is this the desired behavior?
>> armedbear-devel mailing list
>> armedbear-devel at common-lisp.net
More information about the armedbear-devel