Anonymous user
Talk:Bitwise IO: Difference between revisions
Still encoding /= encoded thing
(Still encoding /= encoded thing) |
|||
Line 197:
Hopely the task is clear(er) (at least an OCaml programmer seemed to have got it!), and I've learned
«Ada allows specifying a bit order for data type representation» (but underlying implementation will need to map to hardware convention, so it would be faster just to use the "default", I suppose!) --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
: Everything in mathematics is just a labeling problem. Mathematics is a process of labeling, no more. As well as computing itself is, by the way. Your following reasoning makes no sense to me. When byte is a container of bits, you cannot name the ordinal number corresponding to the byte '''before''' you label its bits (more precisely define the encoding). The fallacy of your further reasoning is that you use a certain encoding (binary, positional, right to left) without naming it, and then start to argue that there is no any other, that this is natural (so there are others?), that everything else is superfluous etc. In logic A=>A, but proves nothing.
: Here are some examples of encoding in between bits and bytes: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADIX-50 4-bit character codes], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary-coded_decimal packed decimal numbers].
: This is an example of a serial bit-oriented protocol [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Area_Network CAN], note how transmission conflicts are resolved in CAN using the identifier's bits put on the wire. Also note that a CAN controller is responsible to deliver CAN messages to the CPU in the endianness of the later. I.e. it must recode sequences of bits on the wire into 8-bytes data frames + identifiers.
: More about [http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6788 endianness] --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||