Revisions to Byte extension methods for common bitwise operations

added 58 characters in body

Source Link

edited Sep 29, 2019 at 7:38

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly and is a well known bit operation technique. Right-to-left indexes are more common in bitwise systems.

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly and is a well known bit operation technique.

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly and is a well known bit operation technique. Right-to-left indexes are more common in bitwise systems.

obsolete part

Source Link

edited Sep 28, 2019 at 21:07

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly.

~~I'm not sure what you mean with the shift operations. Isn't >> a shift already?~~ I just noticed this function operates on an array rather than and is a single bytewell known bit operation technique.

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly.

~~I'm not sure what you mean with the shift operations. Isn't >> a shift already?~~ I just noticed this function operates on an array rather than a single byte.

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly and is a well known bit operation technique.

Source Link

created Sep 28, 2019 at 13:23

The postfix AtIndex is too verbose. You don't have any other operations like AtMask or anything and the index is provided as argument. So I would prefer IsBitSet over IsBitSetAtIndex etc.
The index is sometimes a byte, sometimes a uint. I would not bother with such level of (over-)engineered type picks. Stick with the common type for an index int. You can always add argument checks for bounds.
You can replace 1 << 7 - index with 1 << index in your operations. This is written more compactly.
~~I'm not sure what you mean with the shift operations. Isn't >> a shift already?~~ I just noticed this function operates on an array rather than a single byte.

Return to Answer