We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
int/*64
Currently, int/s64 and int/u64 support most of the common bit manipulation operations:
int/s64
int/u64
janet/src/core/inttypes.c
Lines 549 to 597 in b125cbe
Notably absent is complement / not.
complement
not
Is there a technical reason this could / should not be implemented?
primo-ppcg shared some considerations regarding some implementation considerations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've implemented this on my local fork, I don't believe there's any issue:
(for n -99 100 (assert (compare= (bnot n) (bnot (int/s64 n))))) (assert (= (int/u64 "0xFFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF") (bnot (int/u64 0))))
Sorry, something went wrong.
Just an error of omission
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Currently,
int/s64
andint/u64
support most of the common bit manipulation operations:janet/src/core/inttypes.c
Lines 549 to 597 in b125cbe
Notably absent is
complement
/not
.Is there a technical reason this could / should not be implemented?
primo-ppcg shared some considerations regarding some implementation considerations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: