This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.
Source for ticket #349
cc
changetime
2012-04-09 22:12:17
component
WG1 - Core
description
Currently, R7RS (tracking R5RS) does not constrain the sizes of exact integers: in principle, the maximum exact integer supported by an implementation could be as small as 7 (though that would seriously limit the maximum sizes of strings, vectors, and bytevectors as well). R6RS requires systems to support "practically unlimited" size exact integers. It also requires that a subset of these exist, called ''fixnums'', which must support at least the range -2^23^ to 2^23^-1. (Supposedly this range was chosen because it is the range of fixnums in MIT Scheme, and all other practical Schemes have larger ranges for their fixnums.) I propose that we adopt this range as the minimum range of R7RS exact integers.
The immediate issue here is that a module name may contain (non-negative) exact integers as well as identifiers in R7RS. For such names to be portable, there must be a portable range of exact integers.
id
349
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
cowan
resolution
wontfix
severity
status
closed
summary
Define exact integers to be at least 24 bits
time
2012-02-24 06:53:39
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2012-04-09 22:12:17
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1333984337804094
ticket
349
time
2012-04-09 22:12:17
Change at time 2012-04-09 22:12:17
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
wontfix
oldvalue
raw-time
1333984337804094
ticket
349
time
2012-04-09 22:12:17
Change at time 2012-04-09 22:12:17
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
decided
raw-time
1333984337804094
ticket
349
time
2012-04-09 22:12:17
Change at time 2012-04-09 22:12:10
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
This proposal was rejected by the WG. #359, which is not yet decided, attempts to accomplish the same result in a different way.
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1333984330414010
ticket
349
time
2012-04-09 22:12:10
Change at time 2012-04-09 22:12:10
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
decided
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1333984330414010
ticket
349
time
2012-04-09 22:12:10
Change at time 2012-03-01 05:42:29
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
See FixnumInfo for information on 39 Schemes.
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1330551749374585
ticket
349
time
2012-03-01 05:42:29
Change at time 2012-02-24 07:27:29
author
aag
field
comment
newvalue
I understand the goal of this proposal, but it doesn't fit well with the idea that we support embedded Schemes, which often run on devices with CPUs of less than 32 bits. Marc Feeley's group, I believe, has such an implementation. Should they not be considered Scheme just because they run on such CPUs and don't support bignums?
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1330039649490030
ticket
349
time
2012-02-24 07:27:29