Re: Logical NOT operator

And bitwise left- and right-shift operators. And programmable combinators. And dealing with relational numbers. And matrix-multiplication.

...not.
Reason: I think they will not add more combinators, cause it with the belts: Deal with possibilities you have.

What you just did was to create a strawman argument. Nobody asked for any of the things you've mentioned.

They added stack inserters -- they could have said "deal with the possibilities you have".
They added a power switch -- they could have said "deal with the possibilities you have".
They added readable accumulator level -- they could have said "deal with the possibilities you have".
They added controllable belts -- they could have said "deal with the possibilities you have".

Do I have to go on?

There's always something you can add to the game (including the combinator, of which there currently are only 3 with very basic functions) without being outlandish. At some point, you have to stop or you'll overload the UI and create a mess.

It's still a long way before we're at this point.

The original suggestion was to create a "NOT EQUALS" comparison for the decider combinator (and not "add a new combinator" as you said). This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Bitwise left- and right-shift does not have to be added, because that's multiplying and dividing by powers of two. That would be an unreasonable suggestion.
Statistics: Posted by siggboy — Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:00 pm