Historical research and curiosity Q: What ever happened to #bitAt:put:

>[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 -

>
>>[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?
>