You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Besides interoperability, there'd be an added bonus: polymorphic comparison (Pervasives.compare, Pervasives.(<)) would work as expected on Uint32.t and Uint64.t. At present, large positive numbers of those types are represented as negative numbers, and so comparison behaves unexpectedly.
For easy interoperability it would be helpful to have the following type equalities in the interface:
rather than the current situation:
Besides interoperability, there'd be an added bonus: polymorphic comparison (
Pervasives.compare
,Pervasives.(<)
) would work as expected onUint32.t
andUint64.t
. At present, large positive numbers of those types are represented as negative numbers, and so comparison behaves unexpectedly.Previous discussion: yallop/ocaml-integers#2
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: