If by "bit type", you mean a type that can take on 1/0, then I disagree.
If by bit, you mean a representation which takes advantage of all bits in an interval of memory, I also disagree. However, if by "bit type" you mean a type which takes on 1/0 values where those 1/0 values are packed to take advantage of all bits in an interval of memory, then I agree. But, yes, resistance - some of that is embedded in the hardware design (of modern CPUs), and some of that has to do with the amount of work needed in software to compensate for the hardware issues. This could almost double the size of the interpreter. That said, if you feel inclined to develop support for bits as a densely packed type, other people might appreciate your work. (Indexing might be good places to start?) Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, greg heil <[email protected]> wrote: > Raul > >>You may have a better word for what i call bit-boolean if so i accede to your >>greater knowledge. i and my colleagues just referred to it as boolean 40 or >>50 years ago. Things may have changed in the language. However it is >>incontrovertible that there is no bit type in J. i also contend there has >>been a long standing resistance to having such. There may be extenuating >>reasons, but it is definitely the poorer for those who would use such. > > greg > ~krsnadas.org > > -- > > from: Raul Miller <[email protected]> > to: Programming forum <[email protected]> > date: 13 August 2015 at 15:35 > subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Bitwise operations utility > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, greg heil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>i wrote my undergraduate thesis (in APL) using the manipulation of Boolean >>>matrices (categories, and many other algebra objects - with arbitrarily >>>large sizes). i always disliked J because of its avowed anti-Boolean >>>typology. Another thing to be worked around. > > Boolean means different things to different people. > >>There's George Boole's approach, for example, and there's later work > which constrains the scope to truth values. > >>Which are you talking about, here? And, why do you call J's approach > "anti-Boolean"? > >>(We can take this to chat, if that helps - if we won't be discussing > programming.) > > Thanks, > > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
