The point here is that you can't tell how to interpret a bit-string without knowing whether it is signed or unsigned. You can't tell by looking at the bits.
The original statement was that #: does bad stuff on negatives. I agree. Then the suggestion was that #:inv should do something different. Here, I disagree. There need to be two variants, one treating the bits as signed, one as unsigned. Since that seems inconvenient, we need to pick one variant, and the unsigned one seems clearly more useful. Henry Rich On 12/12/2011 9:31 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > Ok... > > This, combined with a few other issues, is making me think that #: is > not the right word to be used here. Perhaps #:: but probably just a > library word. > > But the problem is that 2 #. #: i: 9 would no longer be equivalent to i: 9. > > That, and my original suggestion breaks if #: gets updated... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
