Re: Last bits of the basic math semantics

At 10:43 PM +0100 8/26/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:18:54PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >  Good question. The size of the bignum, if it's been declared to have
> >  a maximum size, or the maximum size that it's been, though that
> >  doesn't feel particularly right.
> That feels particularly bad if language implementations happen to re-use
> temporary PMCs. (As perl re-uses temporary SVs in a subroutine's pad)
> As what you get may depend on a previous caller's values.
>
> I can't really see how you can rotate a bignum that doesn't have a width
> already associated with it.
You and Felix are right -- I missed the right answer. We'll treat 
rotates of bignums as shifts.
--
                                Dan

--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@xxxxxxxxx                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk