# Type domain (static) integers

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/type-domain-static-integers/118568>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** discussion, integer\
**Created:** [August 24, 2024, 4:52pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/type-domain-static-integers/118568 "2024-08-24T16:52:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2024, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/type-domain-static-integers/118568/2 "2024-08-24T16:56:44Z")

</div>

Responding to a historic criticism:

> [@Static.jl vs StaticNumbers.jl](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/static-jl-vs-staticnumbers-jl/87228/20):
>
> For the same reason, adding the code that would be in a package directly into Base via some ststicint.jl file to prevent invalidation is not going to solve the situation, and will, at best, just be a bandaid for one specific usecase. Personally I don’t think that’s a good idea, and the reason can be seen in this very thread: what about floating points values? And then the next “what about” and so on and so on.

Disagree, integers are much more fundamental. Floating-point numbers, in particular, may be constructed from the integers (indeed, that’s how they’re defined, and that’s how they’re implemented), so a “static float” or another “static real” type is less essential for inclusion into `Base`.

That said, I think adding more such types into `Base` could be a _good_ thing. It’s true that `Base` is too fat (e.g., it depends on GMP and even MPFR), but that’s no argument for excluding these more fundamental features from `Base`.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/type-domain-static-integers/118568)._