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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 33 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 33 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: srfi-33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Resuming SRFI-33 discussion*From*: shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 03:11:17 -0400*Delivered-to*: srfi-33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Reply-to*: shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have gone over all unresolved issues from the old discussions. Below, the resolutions. I will send the current draft in a following message; Francisco can install it in the right place at his convenience. -Olin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: - NAND & NOR are no longer n-ary. Only associative ops are. - Sticking with SIZE/POSITION field specs over FROM/TO. - Staying with "op-curry" convention for param order. - ANY/ALL lexemes switched to more standard/more-parallel ANY/EVERY for ANY-BIT-SET? EVERY-BIT-SET? - New pair of complementary functions BIT-FIELD-ANY? BIT-FIELD-EVERY? replaces unbalanced TEST-BIT-FIELD?. - "BIT-FIELD" lexeme consistently moved to front of name for BIT-FIELD-ANY? BIT-FIELD-EVERY? BIT-FIELD-EXTRACT BIT-FIELD-CLEAR BIT-FIELD-REPLACE BIT-FIELD-COPY (Is everyone agreeable to this?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bengt Kleberg <eleberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> i have no objection to the functionality/set of operations offered by the "Integer Bitwise-operation Library" by Olin Shivers. instead i would like to change function names and argument order to make them slightly more reminiscent of the string and vector operations. 1 would it be possible to change arithmetic-shift i count -> exact-integer to bit-shift-left i count -> exact-integer bit-shift-right i count -> exact-integer This doesn't seem sufficiently compelling to warrant further stewing around. I'm going to leave things with the traditional "arithmetic shift" functionality. 2 would it be possible to change bit-set? index i -> boolean any-bits-set? test-bits i -> boolean all-bits-set? test-bits i -> boolean first-set-bit i -> exact-integer to bit-set? i index -> boolean bit-set-any? i test-bits -> boolean bit-set-all? i test-bits -> boolean bit-set-smallest i -> exact-integer No, I think this would be a bad idea, since the convention to which you are suggesting we hew is one that implies we are thus operating on a data-structure called a "bit set." But we aren't. Sets of bits are a pretty boring data structure -- there are only four such sets! Rather, we are checking to see if any bits in a bit string are set. 3 would it be possible to change extract-bit-field size position i -> exact-integer test-bit-field? size position i -> boolean clear-bit-field size position i -> exact-integer replace-bit-field size position new-field i -> exact-integer copy-bit-field size position from to -> exact-integer to bit-field-extract i size position -> exact-integer bit-field-test? i size position -> boolean bit-field-clear i size position -> exact-integer bit-field-replace i size position new-field -> exact-integer bit-field-copy from to size position -> exact-integer Your param order issue is the "op-currying" vs. "data-structure accessor" parameter convention. See below. Your names seem more in tune with Scheme conventions, so I am converting to them. If people don't like this, speak up. 4 i have been unable to find a better name for integer-length i -> nonnegative-exact-integer but would really like to have a 'bit' prefix here too. Nothing leaps to mind for me, either. It is the traditional name. It works fine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Are NAND & NOR n-ary? I am frankly somewhat divided on this issue. Given that Al Petrofsky now supports going with the simple associative-ops-are-the-n-ary-ops design heuristic, I have gone with this. I don't think it's a big deal, either way. I have also just noticed that this split is precisely what Common Lisp does. - SIZE/POSITION vs. FROM/TO I went with SIZE/POSITION. Here is the rationale from the SRFI. SIZE/POSITION vs. FROM/TO field specs Several functions in this library extract-bit-field size position i -> integer test-bit-field? size position i -> boolean clear-bit-field size position i -> integer replace-bit-field size position new-field i -> integer copy-bit-field size position from to -> integer specify a contiguous "field" of bits in a bitstring. There are two conventions we might use to do so: - SIZE/POSITION E.g., "the 8-bit field beginning at bit 3", and - FROM/TO E.g., "the field from bit 3 up to, but not including, bit 11", or, perhaps, "the field from bit 3 up to bit 10, inclusive." FROM/TO specs are conventionally and most usefully "half-open" specs, meaning "all i such that FROM <= i and i < TO" -- the FROM index is included and the TO index is excluded. I have chosen to use SIZE/POSITION instead of FROM/TO for this library. Doing so eliminates any possibility of fencepost errors on the TO endpoint. It is also the convention chosen by Common Lisp. It is not, however, a widely-used convention within Scheme. Most ranges in Scheme are specified with half-open intervals of the [from,to) form (e.g., (substring s from to)). One might argue that SIZE/POSITION is still the right thing for bit fields, as they are, in practice, frequently of fixed size, unlike element ranges in strings or vectors. - ANY/ALL lexemes -> standard ANY/EVERY lexemes I have noticed that the ANY-BITS-SET? / ALL-BITS-SET? pair of functions do not follow the Scheme naming convention of using ANY and EVERY. Also, ALL is a word that pairs with SOME; ANY pairs with EVERY. So I have renamed them: ANY-BITS-SET? => ANY-BIT-SET? ALL-BITS-SET? => EVERY-BIT-SET? Notice the "bit-set" lexem is now consistently singular, which is both more consistent with other names and grammatically correct. - TEST-BIT-FIELD? => BIT-FIELD-ANY? BIT-FIELD-EVERY? TEST-BIT-FIELD tests for *any* bit in the field being set; it should be complemented with a function to test for *all* bits in the field being set. So I have replaced it with the pair of functions BIT-FIELD-ANY? BIT-FIELD-EVERY? Note that you can also check for any/every bit in the field being clear, as well, by negating these functions. This name choice is also closer to Bengt's preferred choices.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: HEY! Wake up!** - Next by Date:
**Late request for additional functions** - Previous by thread:
**Re: HEY! Wake up!** - Next by thread:
**Late request for additional functions** - Index(es):