>[squeak-dev] Historical research and curiosity Q: What ever happened to #bitAt:put:
>Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
>Tue Feb 16 09:13:16 UTC 2010
>
>
>On 16.02.2010, at 05:16, Jerome Peace wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As a bug tracker, I sometimes get into the mood for historical research. What happened 30 years ago and how does it affect us now?
>> 
>> So with my faithful mischief maker puck looking over my shoulder I have been reading the Draft Ansi Smalltalk Standard.
>> 
>> I mention puck because when we don't recognize something he suggests ways to try things out. Doing so we found that
>> 
>> 15 bitAt: 1 "works and returns 1"
>> 
>> yet
>> 
>> 15 bitAt: 1 put 0 "is not understood, It brings up a spelling corrector."
>> 
>> So I'm stumped.
>> 
>> Does squeak differ from the standard by not implementing bitAt:put:
>
>Even #bitAt: seems to be a very recent addition. It's not in 3.8.
>
>And it's not even clear what #bitAt:put: should do on SmallIntegers, which are immutable. What does the standard say?
>
>- Bert -
 Ha. You're right. #bitAt: isn't even in my "final" released version of 3.10.2 .
nice 3/21/2008 21:47 Integer>>bitAt: {bit manipulation} 
was the time stamp.

The draft standard said #bitAt:put: should return a new number whose value replaces the indexed bit of the receiver with the lsb of the operand. 

So apparently squeak did not implement the standard in its entirety. Next question: What was squeaks rationale for differing?


Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace