-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 76
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use Z module directly #1329
Use Z module directly #1329
Conversation
This reverts commit 944b531.
I think some comments also still refer to bitwise operations where they should now refer to logical operations to be consistent. |
(** Logical and: [x && y] *) | ||
|
||
val logor : t -> t -> t | ||
val c_logor : t -> t -> t | ||
(** Logical or: [x || y] *) | ||
|
||
end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is one of the places where comments and function names should be made to match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This matches though. The c_
prefix means it's logical in the C sense, which is what the comment also says.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but e.g. the section headers like Logical Operations
and Bit operators
are now very confusing after we renamed these functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Confusing how? They still correctly refer to what kind of C operations they're for and include example C expressions.
The confusing thing is OCaml using log
prefix for bitwise operations and calls them "bitwise logical" in standard library documentation. All we can do is be consistent with it.
Solves #1317