Right now we have separate primitives Not for invert of a Bit type and Invert for invert of a Bits type. I propose we merge them into a single, polymorphic Invert primitive. This came up when documenting the ~ operator, which needs to dispatch on the type and call the right function.
Is there a strong case for having Not be separate than Invert? The argument for using Invert is that gives us Not for implementation logical not (!). Otherwise, we could use LNot for logical not.
Right now we have separate primitives
Notfor invert of aBittype andInvertfor invert of aBitstype. I propose we merge them into a single, polymorphicInvertprimitive. This came up when documenting the~operator, which needs to dispatch on the type and call the right function.Is there a strong case for having
Notbe separate thanInvert? The argument for usingInvertis that gives usNotfor implementation logical not (!). Otherwise, we could useLNotfor logical not.