Alfresco Petrofsky <xxxxxx@petrofsky.org> writes:
> > Just for a little context, play this game: ask yourself, "How many
> > functions are there from two booleans to a boolean?" Go ahead; work
> > it out. Then you will see that SRFI 33 provides a name for every one
> > of them, and defines one operation for each such function
>
> > That is the *core idea* underlying that part of the library.
>
> In one sense, the srfi "provides a name" for bitwise-const0, etc., but
> in the words of the srfi these operations are "not provided".
>
> In a previous email you said that providing these would be "beyond the
> pale", but now you say they are part of "the *core idea*".
>
> I could go either way, but I'm a little confused by your rhetoric.

The library *does* provide a name for what you're calling
bitwise-const0.  It's `0'.

(Sure, you had that before you loaded the library, too, but that's not
the point.)