<duane@franz.com> wrote:
+---------------
| t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
| > But if one decided that for simplicity it was better not to have
| > separate fixnum and bignum implementations, I don't see where the spec
| > would prevent one from doing so.
| >
| > This is, as far as I know, though a purely theoretical possibility.
| > I don't know of any implementations that have followed this route.
| 
| None that are conforming implementations.  See
| http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.1/ansicl/dictentr/fixnum.htm
| and note that fixnum must be at least a supertype of (signed-byte 16).
| ... Note also that according to the definition of most-positive-fixnum,
| if you choose too small a set you end up with _very_ small array
| dimensions... :-)
+---------------

Indeed! It's not only that individual indices of arrays must be
non-negative fixnums:

  http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.1/ansicl/subsubse/arrayind.htm

but, worse still, ARRAY-TOTAL-SIZE-LIMIT is a fixnum!!

  http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.1/ansicl/dictentr/array-to.htm

So I'll take rather large fixnums, thank you very much!!  ;-}  ;-}


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607