Re: About "set bits"

[Xue Fuqiao <xfq.free@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:39:17 +0200
Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> wrote:

> () Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
> () Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:19:54 -0400
> 
>    True, these phrases can be ambiguous. But often the context and
>    examples help quite a bit in figuring out the intent. In this case,
>    there were a couple of examples; "bits" tells you to think in binary,
>    and if you examined the binary values of the examples it should
>    quickly become apparent what was meant.
> 
> Yes, i think if OP were to try more stuff in *scratch*, such questions
> could be avoided.

Agreed.  Although I prefer *ielm*.

> In this case, i wrote examples that (to me) seem easy to inspect and
> mentally verify, so that *scratch* is not even necessary.

But I'm not familiar with binary files and binary code, I don't where to
start.

> Let's hope people will step forward and improve the docs over time.)

That's true.  Although my English isn't very good, I'd be glad to
improve/refine the documentation for Emacs, like proof-reading the
manuals and adding documentation about some packages/features that
aren't mentioned in the manuals.

-- 
Xue Fuqiao
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/