From: bc@freeuk.com   
      
   On 28/11/2025 11:49, bart wrote:   
   > On 28/11/2025 02:33, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >> On 11/27/25 18:59, bart wrote:   
   >>> On 27/11/2025 17:38, Ike Naar wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-11-27, bart  wrote:   
   >>>>> Well, let's stick with C. Here are some features I use, and the C   
   >>>>> equivalents (A has whatever type is needed):   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      M                   C   
   >>>>>      -------------------------------------------------------------   
   >>>>> [snip]   
   >>>>>      A.odd               A & 1, or A % 1   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "A % 1" ?   
   >>>   
   >>> I guess A % 2 then.   
   >>   
   >> You guess? - LOL - okay. :-)   
   >>   
   >>> Note my remark about error proneness later on.   
   >>   
   >> Higher level abstractions (usually found in higher level languages)   
   >> are always less error prone than low-level (or composed) constructs.   
   >>   
   >> "C" is inherently and by design a comparably low-level language, so   
   >> I wonder what you complain here about. (You won't change that.)   
   >   
   > So is mine. But it has many more 'commodity' features that make life   
   > simpler. Plus a generally cleaner syntax to make it clearer.   
      
   I didn't answer your (JP's) question.   
      
   When I mention such micro-features of mine, the response is always   
   overwhelmingly negative (even if I subsequently reveal they are inspired   
   by other languages).   
      
   In this thread, in response to a use-case of small BitInt types, I   
   suggested a more general set of bit-operations that didn't involve   
   emplying the type system.   
      
   But apparently, even in the world's most famous and truly 'bare-metal'   
   systems language, accessing the underlying bits of machine types is a   
   rarely used, niche feature.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)