|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | Re: Making 'eq' == 'eql' in bignum branch |
Date: | Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:03:17 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 |
Andy Moreton wrote:
There will always be a performance diffrence between fixnum and bignum values, and it may be useful for performance tuning to have a simple way to discover where that boundary lies.
Performance nerds can use 'most-positive-fixnum' and 'most-negative-fixnum' for that sort of thing. These constants have been there for some time and are not going away. My objection is to 'bignump' and 'fixnump', which are no more necessary as primitives than 'negativep' would be.
These are used in the tests to ensure that implementation is correct, and that values in fixnum range are always represented as fixnums, not bignums. How do you propose to test that without these predicates ?
Tests can use 'most-positive-fixnum' and 'most-negative-fixnum', constants that tests need to use anyway in order to generate values like (1+ most-positive-fixnum). So they can survive quite well without 'bignump' and 'fixnump' as primitives.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |