Re: SRFI-60

[Jamison Hope <jrh at theptrgroup dot com>]

On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:

> On 02/17/2014 10:53 PM, Jamison Hope wrote:
>> I saw that SRFI-60 was almost there, so I went ahead and implemented the rest of it.
> 
> Thanks!

As low hanging fruit go, this one was resting on the ground. :-)

>> Since there are argument order differences compared to existing numbers.scm procedures, I figure this one should probably require an explicit require/import, so it can go in the gnu.kawa.slib package next to srfi1.scm.  Even so, I wonder whether it might be a good idea to remove the builtin logbit? (which is just an alias for bitwise-set-bit? anyway).
> 
> Yes, I think we should remove the old builtin logbit?  I notice Common Lisp's
> logbitp uses the (logbitp index integer) order.  I suspect the (logbit? integer index)
> order is just a bug - it doesn't match any other Scheme I've found.

OK.  That probably still argues for keeping the SRFI-60 version out of the builtins -- if anybody is using the old function by that name and not 'bitwise-bit-set?', it'll be better for them to see a compiler error than to have the semantics altered silently (I wouldn't want to be the one to track down that bug!).

Here's a patch which adds SRFI-60, updates require.java and ImportFromLibrary.java, and removes logbit? from Scheme.java.

--
Jamison Hope
The PTR Group
www.theptrgroup.com

Attachment: srfi60.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail