Archives of the Caml mailing list > Message from Jon Harrop

Browse thread

if (n:int) < 0 then (-n) > 0 is FALSE

Pal-Kristian Engstad
- Jonathan Roewen
  - Mattias_Engdegård
    - Brian Hurt
    - skaller
      - Mattias_Engdegård
    - Jon Harrop
      - Mattias_Engdegård
        
        Brian Hurt
        
        skaller
- Martin Jambon

Date:	2006-12-08 (17:50)
From:	Jon Harrop <jon@f...>
Subject:	Re: [Caml-list] if (n:int) < 0 then (-n) > 0 is FALSE

On Thursday 07 December 2006 19:43, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> Of course it is a bug

I wouldn't call it a bug. It looks like modulo arithmetic to me.

> I would love to have a fast unboxed integer type that automatically
> overflows to bignum, but it would be a tad slower than the current "int".

How can it be both unboxed and allow overflow to a bignum? Would you generate 
int and bigint versions of all functions and then bail to the bigint version 
if anything overflowed?

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists