"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Paul Rubin]

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro at pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>
writes:
>> prints appears to be the 2000th Fibonacci number rather than the 1000th.
> I think you're mistaken. fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1, fib(3) =
> 2 ... fib(11)= 89 ...

Whoops, you're right, I messed up my program while refactoring it.   Sorry.

> you like we can do it iteratively instead, which, as in haskel, takes
> no perceptible time:

I couldn't tell whether the earlier version with the expt 5 was a
direct solution of the recurrence, or what.

>  2. the result of fib(1000) is going to overflow c integer types

Yes, it's a real shame that most cpu's these days don't have a hardware
trap for int overflow.  That would allow much safer programming for the
large amount of code where the programmer expects to never overflow
but can be caught by surprise.