I did not know we were in a release freeze for this beta - if I had known, I would have held off on this change.
That said, I think there's a higher probability of me introducing errors backing out this change than would be introduced by this update. Both probabilities are low. But, also, this will be a beta release - the point of which is to shake out obscure problems. So unless you feel strongly about this, I'd prefer to let this one ride. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 10:28 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > @Raul: I was trying to say that there is no rush to get this into 9.5. > We will release what we have for 9.5 and finish your rewrite in 9.6. > > We always want to give new code a couple of weeks in beta before we make > a final. The changes I have made in the past month are tiny. (It might > look like I've changed a lot, but it's all QP stuff that is not being > announced). > > Since your changes seem to have the potential to break something, I > think it would be better to back them out of 9.5 and put them into 9.6. > Let me know if that is a hardship in any way. > > I was planning to call for a new beta today. It will be the final > beta. The only new feature is u&.(m&{) . we can release 9.05.01 at the > end of the year and get your code into 9.06-beta1. > > Please tell me when you have backed your change out of 9.5. Or, if you > feel confident that your change is solid, tell me that. I will then > call for the final beta. > > hhr > > > On 12/4/2023 10:12 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > No, not only a private branch. I took your message > > https://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/source/2023-December/001628.html > > as an indication that I should push what I had working to the main branch. > > > > That said, I see what happened. Though I'm baffled how it did not fail > > on my machine. > > > > mpn_com is supposed to implement a bitwise negation of a span of gmp > > limbs. It's mpn_neg which is supposed to implement the two's > > complement of that span. > > > > I misremembered these details and implemented in my jmpn_com the logic > > of mpn_neg. That should never have worked in any examples of negating > > an extended integer I can think of. > > > > And yet it repeatedly passed tests on my machine. I don't understand > > how that was possible. I guess I'm going to spend some time looking at > > intermediate results before I go any further with this project. > > > > Thanks, > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
