casting from int to byte problem

[nebulous99]

"Obverse" means either "front" / "facing" or "corresponding". It's most
common use is in numismatics. It is unlikely that's what Curt meant, as I
read his post.

I call excessive pedantry.

He was describing the choice among two alternatives, sign-extending
and not sign-extending. They clearly aren't "inverses" in the usual
sense. "Obverse" does seem to fit better. If you know of a still
better word following the same pattern by all means suggest it;
otherwise leave me the **** alone.

 

[Lew]

[snip obvious insult].

He was describing the choice among two alternatives, sign-extending
and not sign-extending. They clearly aren't "inverses" in the usual

He was describing the difference between contracting an int to a byte and
expanding a byte to an int as an inverse, as I read the comment. Anyway, the
definition of "obverse" in logic is a double negation, as in changing "all men
are mortal" to "no men are immortal", which is clearly not what he was doing.

Even if "inverse" is not the best word it's a much better choice than
"obverse" in this case. "Obverse" is clearly a completely inapt term for what
Curtis said. None of its meanings even come close, whereas "inverse", in its
usual sense, is a darn good choice.

 

[Lew]

what Curtis said.

I apologize. I meant, "what Curt said."

 

[nebulous99]

[snip attack post]

Stop attacking me.

He was not referring to widening versus narrowing; he was referring to
widening with sign extension vs. widening without sign extension.

Your whole vicious attack post is predicated on a wrong assumption,
which is easy to check if you'd bother to read the original post.

Now leave me alone.

 

[Lew]

Lew wrote:
[snip attack post]


Stop attacking me.

If you'd bothered to read my post you would see that I said nothing about you
at all, much less attacked you.

He was not referring to widening versus narrowing; he was referring to
widening with sign extension vs. widening without sign extension.

Your whole vicious attack post is predicated on a wrong assumption,
which is easy to check if you'd bother to read the original post.

Here's an excerpt from the original post about "inverse":

When you did a byte move
into a register (registers were all 16 bits) it was sign extended by
default. ....
If you did a byte move to the register, and performed math on it
(16 bit), and did a byte move back to memory, or to an IO device, what
happened in the high order 8 bits wasn't important. ....
So, given the fact that when doing 8 bit operations, it made no
difference which way it worked, and when doing 8 bit to 16 bit conversion,
one default required 2 extra instructions to do the inverse, and the other
default only required 1 extra instruction, they picked the default that
made the inverse easier.

From that last sentence, it is clear that the two options of "sign extend" or
"no sign extend" are choices to be applied to the same "inverse" operation,
therefore he was not talking about "not sign extend" as the inverse of "sign
extend". Also, it is clear that nothing in his comment was an obverse of
anything else. From the context, I concluded that "when doing 8-bit
operations" referred to the narrowing of 16 to 8 bits, so clearly "when doing
8 bit [sic] to 16 bit [sic] conversion" is intended to be the "inverse"
operation under discussion.

So, despite your vicious inflammatory attack ("if you'd bother"), it is clear
that I did, indeed, read the original post, and that I drew my conclusions
from it. Conclusions, not assumptions, in that they are the product of
reasoning supported by evidence, /a posteriori/.

Anyhow, even if I'm wrong, which I might be, about what Curt meant by
"inverse", there is no way that "obverse" applies.

I notice that in your /ad hominem/ post you completely neglected to address
that point, the central point that I made. Hmm.

So if you have a better choice than "inverse" that is not so clearly
inappropriate and inapplicable as "obverse", let's hear it. I'm satisfied
that I understood the sense of the post, whether "inverse" is exactly right or
not, and I'm simply seeking to illuminate the process by which I arrived at my
understanding. I respect your right to disagree and see it differently.

 

[nebulous99]

If you'd bothered to read my post you would see that I said nothing about you
at all, much less attacked you.

It implied all kinds of awful things. You make a poor liar, Lew.

[snip basically a complete reiteration of the original attacks and
accusations against me]

If you have a problem with me, I invite you to go right ahead and
killfile me, just so long as you shut the hell up. Stop posting things
that insult and contradict me in public and stop seeking to make me
look foolish, wrong, or whatever it is you are trying to do. I do not
take kindly to such behavior, as I thought you would know by now!

[snip]

I'm simply seeking to illuminate the process by which I arrived at my
understanding. I respect your right to disagree and see it differently.

Mealy-mouthed bullshitter. If you respect my right to disagree you
should also respect my right to not have to read and reply to vicious
nonsense like this every few days, or see other people reading and
possibly starting to believe the nasty things you imply about me. I
don't care if you disagree. You can disagree all you want but please
do keep it to yourself, and especially please do not waste both of our
time repeating yourself.