[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bit-extract seems broken.
From: |
Jim Blandy |
Subject: |
Re: bit-extract seems broken. |
Date: |
13 Jan 2001 11:38:49 -0500 |
Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> On 19 Dec 2000, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> > > On 19 Dec 2000, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > > Negative values for the @var{start} and @var{end} arguments to
> > > > bit-extract aren't meaningful, as they index bits the value doesn't
> > > > have. A negative start or end should be an error.
> > >
> > > Right, but what about extracting bits from a negative number?
> >
> > Oh. It should behave as if it were infinitely 1-extended.
>
> This brings me to another question: It seems that in a lot of places it
> is assumed that the machine uses the two's complement representation for
> fixnums. I assume that this is the standard case, or should we try to
> cover other representations as well?
I think the primitives should be defined to act as if the value were
using two's complement. How numbers are actually represented is a
separate issue.
I can't think of any machines in widespread use that don't use two's
complement.
- Re: bit-extract seems broken.,
Jim Blandy <=