[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] encoded-literals
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] encoded-literals |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:48:11 +0100 |
On Dec 19, 2007 4:24 PM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
> felix winkelmann scripsit:
>
> > > Does this mean that the restriction against compiling code that contains
> > > bignum literals has been lifted?
> >
> > No.
>
> Hmm. What would it take to overcome this limitation? Would it be
> straightforward in the
> new framework?
>
It would be easier using the old technique of "compressing" literals:
generate toplevel
variables for these special literals and read them from a string. But
the problem is that
the literal-holding variables have to be defined before the toplevel code starts
executing. And the numbers support code will be loaded by toplevel code (by the
user-provided "(require-extension numbers)").
cheers,
felix