Re: [Amforth] lib/bitnames.frt

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

Hi Enoch,

> Isn't the following more sensible?
> 
>  : is_low? ( pinmask portaddr -- f)
> -    c@ invert and
> +    c@ and 0=
>  ;
>  
>  : is_high? ( pinmask portaddr -- f)
> -    c@ and
> +    c@ and 0>
>  ;
> 
> Thanks, Enoch.
> 
> 1) the writeup says they return "true if..." which means return -1 and
> not a bitmask.

technically only FALSE is specified: 0. TRUE is everything else. But
I agree, that  a flag should be wellformed. Do your changes work in all
cases?

Matthias