Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Fortran was NOT higher level than C.  Was: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 08:15:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86wmjon787.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me> <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org> <vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me> <vb3smg$1ta6s$1@dont-email.me> <vb4q5o$12ukk$3@dont-email.me> <vb6a16$38aj5$1@dont-email.me> <jwv8qw8o7zg.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <vb7q5q$3f6cg$1@dont-email.me> <20240904113123.00002098@yahoo.com> <vba46k$3te58$1@dont-email.me> <20240905130424.00001218@yahoo.com> <20240905143630.000021b8@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 17:15:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e8cf81bb8aea3e69f32958c8dbde0aad";
	logging-data="913822"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ec5ZiKA5GC8SiwAln90vNjUB6fVaJqwg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FckAbW5Mzx+FsY/2bWjKsKOnrJE=
	sha1:QGzD/8I+ovSWQRRmR0A36IyXj9M=
Bytes: 3189

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:04:24 +0300
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know much about typical users of Modern Fortran, but would
>> think that those coming from other languages, esp. from Python, would
>> appreciate built-in infinite-precision integers
>
> Somehow I feel that both "infinite-precision integers" and "arbitrary
> precision integers" are both misnomers.  But they are established terms
> and I don't know how to express it better.  May be, "arbitrary range" ?

Knuth uses the term multiple-precision arithmetic, meaning operations
with no fixed upper limit on range.

In mathematical terminology, "infinite precision" is simply wrong;
that should be "unbounded precision".

Lisp has a long history of using the term Bignums (or is it BigNums?).

I would like to see programming move in the direction of referring
to 'integers' and 'limited-range integers', so multiple precision
is the default unless specified otherwise.

In Smalltalk, IIRC, there is class Integer, with subclasses
SmallInteger, LargePositiveInteger, and LargeNegativeInteger.
Both of the Large variants grow as needed.  In fact that applies
to SmallInteger objects as well:  10000 * 10000 * 10000 * 10000
starts off with SmallInteger (for 10000) but ends up giving a
LargePositiveInteger if SmallInteger cannot accommodate the
resulting value.