(Previous discussion continued)
Re: another operation bear 09 Jan 2005 10:31 UTC

Re: another operation bear 09 Jan 2005 10:31 UTC

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

> | From: xxxxxx@philips.com
> | 2. When scanning different libraries of bit-twiddling, I had
> | stumbled across an implicit design decision that is worth
> | mentioning because it might swiftly break portability's neck:
> |
> |         "What is the value of (LOGAND)?"
> |
> | In my application I define (LOGAND) := 0 because the subsets my
>(logand) ==> -1 because (and) ==> #t.
>This is also necessitated because logand is associative:
>(logand a b) == (logand a (logand b) (logand))

I do not understand why (logand) with zero arguments
ought not signal an error.  Can you enlighten me?

In unrelated news, my host rejected a virus-bearing email
from the SRFI-42 mailing list, and the SRFI list server
which apparently passed the virus along, then unsubscribed
me for bouncing it. The correct response, of course, is
laughter. If it were for a srfi that weren't in some final
status, however, the correct response might be otherwise.