[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Bignums are bogus?

To: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Bignums are bogus?
From: DON%atc.bendix.com@RELAY.CS.NET
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 15:33 EDT

>From:	IN%"Rob MacLachlan <RAM@c.cs.cmu.edu>" 16-APR-1987 12:52
>To:	Sandra J Loosemore <sandra%orion@cs.utah.edu>
>Subj:	bignums are bogus

>I'm not a big bignum user, but I think it might be marginally
>reasonable to support fixed-size 64 bit bignums.  I suspect that 64
>bit bignums would take care of a large percentage of uses.  This would
>also keep get-universal-time happy for a while to come.

I use bignums for set representations.  I think 64 bits is far too
small.  I agree that something over a thousand would almost always
suffice.

Don Mitchell

Prev by Date: Re: CLARIFICATION: [italics]package arguments.
Next by Date: Re: Bignums are bogus?
Previous by thread: Re: SETF and pathname slots
Next by thread: Re: Bignums are bogus?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread