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

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.

*To*: srfi-60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues*From*: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:04:24 -0800*Delivered-to*: srfi-60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20050127190048.7DB7A1B7730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Mail-followup-to*: srfi-60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*References*: <y9lis5y7fjr.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050127190048.7DB7A1B7730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Mutt/1.4.1i

Aubrey Jaffer wrote: > Since we treat integers as having two's-complement negations, the > two's-complement of an integer is its negation. The one's-complement > of an integer is computed by lognot: > > (define (lognot n) (- -1 n)) Isn't that backwards? Complement and negation are equivalent in ones- complement arithmetic; in twos-complement, the complement is equal to negation minus one. Perhaps I'm not understanding your explanation clearly. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**References**:**Twos complement assumption, other issues***From:*Laura Dickey

**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues** - Next by Date:
**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues** - Next by thread:
**Re: Twos complement assumption, other issues** - Index(es):