It's funny, I'm sure we've all read that document numerous times, and yet before this I never noticed the % feature.
I've read it many times, and use the bit-counting form regularly; but always as '%32b*'.
As soon as I half read AnomalousMonk's post, the significance/simplicity of using a count rather than '*' became immediately obvious to me, and I physically blushed red in the realisation.
The only factor that slightly lessened my embarrassment was that I was not the only one who missed it. But only slightly :)
In reply to Re^4: Efficient bit counting with a twist.
by BrowserUk
in thread Efficient bit counting with a twist.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |