Re: SOLVED: going backwards in time

[Adam James Wilson]

I'm all for the use of arbitrary precision arithmetic -- the slowdown
in processing would not bother me at all.  Trevor's idea of a
compile-time choice -- defaulting to 32-bit internals -- would make
everyone else happy.  BTW, should one of us file a bug on this?

Best,
Adam


On 11/29/07, Trevor Bača <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 6:28 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > 2007/11/29, Adam James Wilson <address@hidden>:
> >
> > > I see -- so even with my arithmetic error (which started as a tiny
> > > offset of 9/6319), we should expect Lily to render the score.
> > >
> > > I can see that if fractional relations get complex enough to require
> > > more precision than 32-bit values, there could be a problem.
> > >
> > > Is a possible solution to use 64-bit representation internally?
> >
> > It's an option, but it's a stopgap measure.   The real solution is to
> > have a arbitrary precision arithmetic. GUILE already provides that,
> > but it would have a slight but noticeable performance impact.
>
> Maybe a compile-time option to chose between the two?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Trevor Bača
> address@hidden