Raul >You may have a better word for what i call bit-boolean if so i accede to your >greater knowledge. i and my colleagues just referred to it as boolean 40 or 50 >years ago. Things may have changed in the language. However it is >incontrovertible that there is no bit type in J. i also contend there has been >a long standing resistance to having such. There may be extenuating reasons, >but it is definitely the poorer for those who would use such.
greg ~krsnadas.org -- from: Raul Miller <[email protected]> to: Programming forum <[email protected]> date: 13 August 2015 at 15:35 subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Bitwise operations utility On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, greg heil <[email protected]> wrote: >>i wrote my undergraduate thesis (in APL) using the manipulation of Boolean >>matrices (categories, and many other algebra objects - with arbitrarily large >>sizes). i always disliked J because of its avowed anti-Boolean typology. >>Another thing to be worked around. Boolean means different things to different people. >There's George Boole's approach, for example, and there's later work which constrains the scope to truth values. >Which are you talking about, here? And, why do you call J's approach "anti-Boolean"? >(We can take this to chat, if that helps - if we won't be discussing programming.) Thanks, Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
