From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8611: fixnum arithmetic should not wrap around Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 15:41:24 -0300 Message-ID: References: <4DC0491D.7090404@cs.ucla.edu> <4DC0A99E.3090706@cs.ucla.edu> <4DC0D198.7020506@cs.ucla.edu> <4DC16B6C.3090803@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304534963 16697 80.91.229.12 (4 May 2011 18:49:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8611@debbugs.gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 04 20:49:19 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh8R-0004h8-Od for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 20:49:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53018 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh8R-0005Qz-CS for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:49:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh8F-0005HP-Rj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:49:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh8E-0000Fu-ML for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:49:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53111) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh8E-0000Fq-Kl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:49:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh1O-0003VA-5c; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:42:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 18:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8611 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8611-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8611.130453449613429 (code B ref 8611); Wed, 04 May 2011 18:42:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8611) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2011 18:41:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh0x-0003UY-QT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh0w-0003UM-3b for 8611@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:41:34 -0400 Original-Received: from 121-249-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.249.121]:19105 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHh0q-0003Cs-Gu; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:41:28 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 30EAD66168; Wed, 4 May 2011 15:41:24 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <4DC16B6C.3090803@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 04 May 2011 08:06:20 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 14:42:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:46214 Archived-At: >> Conversion to float is in general not a good idea > OK, how about using bignum instead? That would be cleaner, semantics-wise. But we already have a recent thread about it. Stefan