On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 07:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > > Sized low-level types are named most generally by appending the number > > > of bits to a generic low-level type name: > > > > > > [...] int1 int2 int4 int8 int16 int32 int64 > > > > > > > Ok, so Parrot doesn't have those. Parrot has "int". > > The above "generic low-level types" are specific instances of a more general > specification-based type system, with features grouped roughly as:
Martin, I don't think you can reasonably have the integer registers "typed" so as to allow for multiple storage representations. For one, the very fact that they lack such baggage is what makes them useful. It *may* make sense to provide an unsigned, 64-bit integer somewhere, though (I hesitate to say as an alternate register type, since that touches so much of Parrot). The real question is this: is this just a Perl 6 thing (if so, then it's fodder for the newly created p6c, and we should drop it), or will/should other high level languages be defining sized integer types through Parrot? If so, then I don't think the current idea of having an "Integer" PMC is going to be as generic as suggested. If you think that the limitation of not having a handy 64-bit type on a 32-bit system is no big deal, check out the convolutions one Python user suggests under Windows just to store the time: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/303344 Yeah, you're gonna want to not do that ;-) -- â 781-324-3772 â [EMAIL PROTECTED] â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
