Re: Bitwise logical operators

[tmb@idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)]

|> I've heard no objections to these, not even on the grounds that the
|> language is getting too clutterred.  Please speak up or I'll suggest
|> that they go into triage class 1.
|
|I think the language is in serious danger of becoming too cluttered.
|I believe we need to agree to some form of serious portable library
|and that your portable definitions should go there.  I believe a
|realistic library proposal must include some way of "reserving" names
|to the library, a protocol for entering items in the library, and
|means for testing compatibility of the contents of the library.

Why not simply divide the standard into a "language" and into
a "library" section. In fact, most non-essential features could
go into the library section, as well as some essential procedures
with library character (is "map" essential?).

					Thomas.