On 06/30/2018 10:34 AM, Jerry Jensen via use-livecode wrote:
And I read about bitor in the 9.0.0 dictionary: the operands are treated as
binary between 0 and a signed 32 bit integer (2^32 - 1) max. So bitor wouldn’t
do unless it has grown up into the 64 bit world.
that's a bit (or 32)
On 06/30/2018 10:27 AM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
I just looked back in dictionaries for older version back to 6.7.11 and
there are no shift operators in the dictionary. You have bitAnd, bitOr,
bitXor and botNot, but no shifts operators. Are you sure there were ever
in the language to
> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Jerry Jensen via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
>> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. I'm not too upset about the loss of the bitshift operators other
>> than the lack of backward compatibility, but I'm surprised by
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
wrote:
> Indeed. I'm not too upset about the loss of the bitshift operators other than
> the lack of backward compatibility, but I'm surprised by their demise. In
> terms of minimal use of microprocessor cycles I'd expect that the
On 06/30/2018 10:03 AM, Jerry Jensen via use-livecode wrote:
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
wrote:
Indeed. I'm not too upset about the loss of the bitshift operators other than
the lack of backward compatibility, but I'm surprised by their demise. In terms
of
> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Indeed. I'm not too upset about the loss of the bitshift operators other than
> the lack of backward compatibility, but I'm surprised by their demise. In
> terms of minimal use of microprocessor cycles I'd expect that
On 06/30/2018 03:50 AM, hh via use-livecode wrote:
Mark,
obviously you ask relating to Bob's IPv4 sort problem.
A perceptive observation, as always.
But when optimising (for speed) the connected formula
(1) a + b * 2^8 + c * 2^16 + d * 2^32
using the constants is slightly faster:
(2) a
Mark,
obviously you ask relating to Bob's IPv4 sort problem.
But when optimising (for speed) the connected formula
(1) a + b * 2^8 + c * 2^16 + d * 2^32
using the constants is slightly faster:
(2) a + b * 256 + c * 65536 + d * 16777216
Why is the engine not handling the internal bitshifts
Hmmm...
I just noticed that the bitwise shift left and right operators have
disappeared from the language. When did this happen? The 'bitwise'
modifier is still in the dictionary, but no indication as to how it
might still be useful.
From this I assume (yeah, I know...) that the engine is
