Re: problem with string.format %d and very large integers

[Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>]

Sorry for quoting myself:

On 29/07/2011 21.01, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
[...]

> I assume we can relay on that case, but is it feasible to put in the
> manual a comprehensive list of where this "implicit 32 bit integer"
> problem could bite us?

This seem a case where having some interpreter limits available at 
runtime would be very useful to write more robust scripts.

I know that I asked for this long ago, and Luiz replied that it could 
encourage complicated programming.

But still, here I feel we could benefit from definitions like these:

_NUMBER_TYPE = "double"
_IMPLICIT_INT_WIDTH = 32

I know they are ugly, but it's uglier to try to guess them when you run 
a script with different interpreters (maybe one out of your control, 
because embedded in another program of which you don't have the source).

-- Lorenzo