On 2020-08-18 22:13 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Whatever the final decision on @vector= may be, doesn't it make sense if
> bitvector= uses the same convention?

Then it's bitvector=?, with no equivalence procedure.  If John concurs,
I'll make the change in the sample implementation.

Side note: I believe none of the other issues mentioned above require
implementation changes.  Once the bitvector=(?) change is merged, the
implementation, at least, should be ready for finalization.