From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: documentation of integers, fixnums and bignums Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 08:42:33 +0300 Message-ID: <83sh2jql9y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <0f632217-27ad-4f54-8ce0-480301fa2a86@cs.ucla.edu> <83pnxorm37.fsf@gnu.org> <92915cae-21d5-c365-89f2-3a15fc9114c4@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1536471814 2314 195.159.176.226 (9 Sep 2018 05:43:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 05:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 09 07:43:29 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fysVN-0000Wk-Ms for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 07:43:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46142 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fysXU-0001eF-5r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 01:45:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fysWa-0001dU-QM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 01:44:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fysUO-0006uh-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 01:42:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33147) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fysUO-0006uQ-0S; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 01:42:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1760 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fysUN-0007IM-Kf; Sun, 09 Sep 2018 01:42:27 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 08 Sep 2018 18:03:37 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:229538 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2018 18:03:37 -0400 > > AFAIK any Unicode codepoint fits in 22 (or even 21?) bits, and while we > may use a few extra codepoints IIUC in some corner cases, it should all > fit comfortably within our 28 bits of FIXNATs. Unicode codepoints have almost nothing to do with this, since nowadays encode-char is mostly a no-op with Unicode character set. Its main use is with non-Unicode charsets, and there we cannot apply the knowledge of the Unicode code-space, we cannot even assume the code-space is populated densely as in Unicode.