Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [Michael Hudson]
>>> Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
>>> their sign bit somewhere less aggravating?
>>
>> Depends on where that is.
[...]
>> I'd much rather give struct
Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Michael Hudson]
>> Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
>> their sign bit somewhere less aggravating?
>
> Depends on where that is.
>
>> It seems to me that the top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example,
>
> Yes, the
[Michael Hudson]
> Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
> their sign bit somewhere less aggravating?
Depends on where that is.
> It seems to me that the top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example,
Yes, the top bit of ob_digit[i], for all relevant i, is 0 on
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:14:16PM +0100, Michael Hudson wrote:
> Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
> their sign bit somewhere less aggravating?
As I guess your goal is to get rid of all the "if (size < 0) size = -size" in
object.c and friends, I s
Michael Hudson wrote:
Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
their sign bit somewhere less aggravating? It seems to me that the
top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example, and I'm sure this
would result no less convolution in longobject.c it'd be considerably
m
Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
their sign bit somewhere less aggravating? It seems to me that the
top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example, and I'm sure this
would result no less convolution in longobject.c it'd be considerably
more localized convolut
