Subject: RE: [clisp-list] long-float

From: "Rehm, Keith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Mar 12 08:14:02 2002

I just noticed it does that other behavior when I compile first. That is,
if:

	(setf (ext:long-float-digits) 3322)
	(setf *x1*
0.12345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234
5671234567123456712345671234567L0)

are in a file which is compiled and loaded, typing:

	(format t "~52,50F" *x1*)

does not show full *x1*.

If I just load the file with those definitions things work as expected (as
you've shown).

Is that CLISP design intent?

Is *x1* being defined differently according to whether the compiler was
used?

Thanks,
Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Steingold [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:12 PM
To: Rehm, Keith
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [clisp-list] long-float

> * In message <[email-masked]>
> * On the subject of "[clisp-list] long-float"
> * Sent on Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:59:48 -0600
> * Honorable "Rehm, Keith" <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> why does (format t "~52,50F" *x1*) =>
> 0.12345671234567123457000000000000000000000000000000

cannot reproduce:

[7]> (setf (ext:long-float-digits) 3322)
3322
[8]> (setf *x1*
0.12345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234
5671234567123456712345671234567L0)
0.12345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671234
5671234567123456712345671234567L0
[9]> (format t "~52,50F" *x1*)
0.12345671234567123456712345671234567123456712345671

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
Single tasking: Just Say No.

---

From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Mar 12 13:08:05 2002

> * In message <[email-masked]>
> * On the subject of "RE: [clisp-list] long-float"
> * Sent on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:10:00 -0600

I suggest that you have a look at your compiled FAS file, then wrap the
        (setf (ext:long-float-digits) 3322)
form in
        (eval-when (compile load eval))
and recompile and then take another good look at your compiled FAS file.

I hope someone else will provide a detailed explanation of why this
behavior is correct.

Thanks.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.