Re: 64-bit unsigned integer?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > Why would they be allocated as the humanly-imaginable worst-case for usage of the library? 
Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> Because the upper bound is exactly that, the humanly-imaginable worst case. 

No, the upper bound of a bounded integer (or bounded string for that matter) is what I declared it to be in my own app-domain source code.  The upper-bound is not what other human beings on the planet would like to declare it to be in their app-domain source code.

Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > Bounded textual strings are not allocated as the maximum universally-conceivable textual string length of megabytes long.  Bounded simply means:  pick a modest upper bound and stick to it, say, 128-bit integer for bounded bignum or 32-character string for bounded textual string. 
Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> Why 128 and not 256 or 1056781? 

Because I declared it to be a 128-bit bounded bignum at this place in my app-domain source code for some register in my main processor, and I declared some other 256-bit bounded bignums at some other place in my app-domain source code for some other register in my GPU.  And in this application, the calculations on the 128-bit bounded bignums never utilize the 256-bit bounded bignums, and the calculations on the 256-bit bounded bignums never utilize the 128-bit bounded bignums; they are disjoint usages.  Why does bounded mean for you “one size fits all for all human beings on the planet”?  Bounded means instead the fixed nonvarying size of this instance as declared in each locality of app-domain source code, not in the library (or in the language reference manual, for that matter) for all human beings on the planet.