Re: RBB: Realy Big Bitvector

From: Kenneth G. Cavness (
Date: 12/08/95

On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Naved A Surve wrote:

> In message <> you said:
> > Now, are there _any_ workable ideas for this, or should I just ditch it 
> > based on the grounds that it's not possible?
> Ditch it on the grounds that it's not possible.  If you find a way of doing
> it, write a paper on how you managed to store more than one bit of
> information in one bit of storage.

This is becoming more than irritating. Are you aware of what "emulator" 
means? Did you give more than a cursory glance to my original statements?

If you did only glance at them, please go back and look at them. Then, go 
back and read where I stated in the letter that you _just_ replied to 
that "bitvector" was perhaps the wrong term; rather, "individually 
settable flags" would have worked better; that's what the current system 
of bitvectors does.

Understand this, and I'm going to say this very clearly: 
I am not trying to store more than one bit of information in one bit of 

If you are still having trouble understanding what I am suggesting after 
comprehensively reading over what I have written in the past few days, 
you might want to let those that _do_ understand what I'm talking about 
work with this, and just observe. This way, you can get an idea of what 
I'm trying to talk about, instead of continuing to mistakenly believe I'm 
trying to imply that you can wrangle more than 8 flags by using the 
extremely simple bit operations that we use now.

A cavalier and dismissing approach to this submission is the incorrect 
approach to take at this time. Making an actual effort to understand what 
I'm trying to do, and then posting reasonable and extensive positions on 
why, even after I gave several possible general solutions, I am still wrong.

> If you REALLY want to save memory, and speed/efficiency are not a priority,
> write out the lib files as binary data, then memory map those files and do
> all your operations on the mapped files.  That way, you save all the memory
> that your world files are taking up.  I would bet its a big saving too, as
> the world file data takes up a considerable amount of memory.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal. It's an 
entirely different subject altogether, and while it will have greater 
memory savings than the question I am asking at the time, it does nothing 
other than offer a red herring.

Kenneth G. Cavness                  |
Associate Editor                    |   "That which is possible is not always
MIDS, TIC                           |    probable." -- Isaac Asimov
1-512-451-7602                      |   "What about the Tuna?" -- Unknown

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST