Re: 64-bit unsigned integer?

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 18-03-01 21:10 , Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 19:15, Dan'l Miller wrote:
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> That replaces unpredictable penalty with a predictably prohibitive one.
>>
>> Why is it prohibitive?
>
> Because a bounded-length number object will have the worst case length,
> always. E.g. 100 x 64-bit words. Each elementary operation will take
> 1600 bytes from the stack and return 800 bytes back. This is certainly
> not for a small embedded/real-time target.
>
> But surely any range must be supported regardless the target hardware.
> Why invent a bicycle? Just allow
>
>    type Big is range -2**6399..2**6399-1;

I agree that such a built-in, non-library solution would be preferable 
from the programmer's point of view. But it could have consequences in 
other parts of the language which depend on the size of the largest 
integer type, and that could make it harder for a compiler to support 
the above form than to support a "bignum" library, bounded or unbounded.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .