[R6RS] Draft of arithmetic SRFI

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

> As I mentioned in Boston, I would prefer that these (and other arithmetic
> procedures, where applicable) signal an error (raise an exception)
> whenever the "normal" (non wrapping) arithmetic result cannot be
> represented as a fixnum.  I don't think there's much use to the programmer
> in wrapping when the size in bits isn't specified, and there is utility
> in having an error signaled so that one is notified if overflow occurs.

I personally don't care either way---I agree that as set of fixnum
primitives that allow you to specify an overflow handler (and maybe
even access to the carry bit) would be more useful than the current
set.

There is an issue bullett in the SRFI document, so, as far as I'm
concerned, the jury is still out on this.  I'm pretty sure people like
Brad Lucier or Sebastian Egner will have more to say on this.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla