[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comment on HAULONG
- To: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Subject: Re: Comment on HAULONG
- From: JonL at PARC-MAXC
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1982 21:33:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp at SU-AI, Kaplan@PARC
- In-reply-to: Guy.Steele's message of 7 July 1982 2244-EDT (Wednesday)
I'm a little late in commenting on this, but before anything drastic is
done, perhaps the following should be considered:
HAULONG was clearly defined as "computer" operation. Attempts to put it
on a mathematical footing apparently only make it more obscure. It's intent
is to count the number of "informational" bits in two's-complement number,
and it's encoding in MacLisp simply takes the magnitude first, before
"counting" the bits.
Thus I agree with EAK that
is a poor definition for HAULONG, and my solution would be to abandon
the mathematical-based definition altogether. I think it would be even
worse to give it a name which implied that it had some such simple
In general, as we discovered with the problem of printing out bitstrings
"in reverse order", there is a conflict with standard mathematical notation
for integers, and a computer users attempt to bitstrings as integers.
HAULONG stands in the middle of this conflict.