[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware
|
From: |
Peter Bex |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops |
|
Date: |
Fri, 19 May 2017 22:54:39 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:48:38PM +0200, lemonboy wrote:
> Hello hackers,
> there's not much more to say.
I'm wondering, is it defined only for fixnums and false, or is it
part of the API that it allows any non-fixnum object?
(fx+? 'hi 'there) => #f
In that case, the type shouldn't be
(fx+? (or fixnum false) (or fixnum false)) => (or fixnum false)
but
(fx+? * *) => (or fixnum false)
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops, lemonboy, 2017/05/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops,
Peter Bex <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops, lemonboy, 2017/05/21
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops], Peter Bex, 2017/05/21
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops], Evan Hanson, 2017/05/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops], Peter Bex, 2017/05/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops], Evan Hanson, 2017/05/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops, Evan Hanson, 2017/05/24