[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: another operation

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 60 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 60 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

> | From: sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx
> | 2. When scanning different libraries of bit-twiddling, I had
> | stumbled across an implicit design decision that is worth
> | mentioning because it might swiftly break portability's neck:
> |
> |         "What is the value of (LOGAND)?"
> |
> | In my application I define (LOGAND) := 0 because the subsets my
>(logand) ==> -1 because (and) ==> #t.
>This is also necessitated because logand is associative:
>(logand a b) == (logand a (logand b) (logand))

I do not understand why (logand) with zero arguments
ought not signal an error.  Can you enlighten me?

In unrelated news, my host rejected a virus-bearing email
from the SRFI-42 mailing list, and the SRFI list server
which apparently passed the virus along, then unsubscribed
me for bouncing it. The correct response, of course, is
laughter. If it were for a srfi that weren't in some final
status, however, the correct response might be otherwise.