From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Frank Terbeck Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: SRFI-151 (Bitwise Operations) Implementation Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:26:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87h81432q7.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> References: <87y2uh2qyu.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87r2092dxa.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87muaw3i7z.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="196937"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-user To: John Cowan Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 09 19:28:51 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWm-0005c1-Qp for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:27:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36096 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWl-0001e2-8z for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:27:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46409) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWR-0001dg-GS for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:27:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWQ-0004c6-AP for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:27:07 -0500 Original-Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de ([80.67.31.31]:37331) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWQ-0004TI-1W for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:27:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.155.206.63] (helo=jim.voodoo.lan) by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1ipcWN-0004WB-MT; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:27:03 +0100 Original-Received: by jim.voodoo.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F4C5127781; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:26:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (John Cowan's message of "Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:50:37 -0500") X-Df-Sender: NDMwNDQ0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 80.67.31.31 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:16020 Archived-At: John Cowan wrote: [...] > The reason bitwise-nand and friends have only two arguments (and this comes > from Olin's original) is that they aren't associative: it's ambiguous > whether (bitwise-nand a b c) means (bitwise-nand (bitwise-nand a b) c) or > (bitwise-nand a (bitwise-nand b c)), and these are *not* equivalent. > Rather than choosing one of these arbitrarily, users have to say what they > mean. Well, how about that. :) That is a great argument. I'll make those two binary then, as the spec suggests. Thanks! Regards, Frank -- In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- RFC 1925