Thibault Langlois wrote:
>I thought that rationals were made of two bignums and that I could not
>have overflow errors. Am I wrong ?
Well, maybe you should have a look at how large these bignums become, you may be surprised.
Maybe you should have a look at CL's long float type (4 types in CL, only 2 in C et al), and esp. CLISP' settable length of these.
My experience with computing integrals was that using ratios was not better than floats, because
a) the polynomial coefficients, represented as ratios, had huge numerators and denominators (bignums)
b) so computing with them was *orders* of magnitudes slower than with floating point,
c) wellchosen floatingpoint types gave enough precision.
Regards,
Jorg Hohle.
