From 46cbe83ff39b06ff31a02d19f433253f9dd46bed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eli Barzilay Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:46:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify comment re `fixnum?' non-use at the syntax level, and add a note to the `fixnum?' documentation. original commit: 9a485064ed81366579f2a5c7cebf591de7e07be2 --- collects/typed-scheme/typecheck/tc-expr-unit.rkt | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/collects/typed-scheme/typecheck/tc-expr-unit.rkt b/collects/typed-scheme/typecheck/tc-expr-unit.rkt index 6932cf09..b5153d39 100644 --- a/collects/typed-scheme/typecheck/tc-expr-unit.rkt +++ b/collects/typed-scheme/typecheck/tc-expr-unit.rkt @@ -21,9 +21,10 @@ (import tc-if^ tc-lambda^ tc-app^ tc-let^ check-subforms^) (export tc-expr^) -;; Is the number a fixnum on all the platforms Racket supports? -;; This relies on Racket being compiled only on 32+ bit systems. -;; This check is done at compile time to typecheck literals. +;; Is the number a fixnum on *all* the platforms Racket supports? This +;; works because Racket compiles only on 32+ bit systems. This check is +;; done at compile time to typecheck literals -- so use it instead of +;; `fixnum?' to avoid creating platform-dependent .zo files. (define (portable-fixnum? n) (and (exact-integer? n) (< n (expt 2 31))