Friends,
Sorry I'm a latecomer to this party, but I do have one comment:
Terrance Swift writes:
| ?- -2147483648 < 2147483647 .
++Error[XSB]: [Runtime/C] Overflow in integer, returning MAX_INT
no | ?- -2147483648 < 1 .
++Error[XSB]: [Runtime/C] Overflow in integer, returning MAX_INT
yes
I recently did some work on integer overflow in the tokenizer. Previously, it was pretty bad in XSB. I tried to make it less bad. The above is one problem I punted. -2147483648, the smallest 32-bit integer, is flagged incorrectly as overflow, as shown here. The problem is that it's not easy in the XSB tokenizer to determine when processing an integer whether it is positive or negative; they essentially are all initially treated as positive. So since 2147483648 *is* an overflow, I took the easy way out and flagged it an error even in the case in which it would be turned negative, and so be OK. That was my laziness. (Bart, do you have a practical example in which it was critical to have that one, rather special, negative integer? :-).
Now:
| ?- -2 < 2147483647 .
no
This is quite troubling. I will look into it.
-David