There are bunches of functions that can be accessed
in common lisp, and maybe it is worth making a list
of them somewhere.
Like ?evenp(), ?oddp(), ?logand(), ...
My guess is that renaming their functionality is counterproductive:
?logand will still be there, so calling it bitwise_and doesn't
really help.
If you add symbolic capabilities, maybe you have a better case.
That is evenp(x) could simply call ?evenp if x is an integer.
But
is evenp(2*n) ---> is (integerp(n))
is oddp(x+45) ---> is (evenp(x))
etc for simplification.
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 5/3/06, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eventually, I think logand etc. should all become simplifying
>> functions, so
>> that logand(0,x)=>0, logand(-1,x)=>x, logand(x,x)=>x, etc.
>
logand (? , interval) ???
>>
>
> Agreed, but when we get to that, let's take the opportunity to change the
> names from logand, logor, and logxor to bitwise_and, bitwise_or, and
> bitwise_xor.
>
> logfoo is confusing on two counts; log is short for logarithm, a function
> which plays a larger role in Maxima than bitwise operations, and
> "logical" isn't a very good description anyway -- these functions are
> just for bit twiddling, and have nothing to do with symbolic true /
> false.
>
> FWIW
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima