Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Logical operations on integers.
Message-ID: <5260@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 15 Apr 91 10:09:38 GMT
References: <BEVAN.91Apr5092119@panda.cs.man.ac.uk> <CARLTON.91Apr8201836@husc10.harvard.edu>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 15

In article <CARLTON.91Apr8201836@husc10.harvard.edu>, carlton@husc10.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:
> Do <bitwise logical operations> really make sense when operating on bignums?
If they make sense on any integers at all, they make sense on bignums.
> And and or I
> can buy, at least when operating on non-negative bignums, but not not.

"not" is actually the one that doesn't need special treatment:
	(define (bit-not x) (- -1 x))

The Common Lisp definitions work fine for integers of all sizes.

-- 
It is indeed manifest that dead men are formed from living ones;
but it does not follow from that, that living men are formed from dead ones.
			-- Tertullian, on reincarnation.