On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Brent Brown <brent.brown@clear.net.nz> wr=
ote:
> Yes, you are almost perfectly on "target" (excuse the pun) and this is in=
deed the
> way it's done in C. Small thing though, you say you would do the AND'ing =
first and
> then OR it, which is correct, but your example shows doing it in the oppo=
site order.
> Likely what you meant was:
>
> target &=3D 0b00001100;
> target |=3D 0b11110011;
>
> And yes you could do:
>
> target =3D (target & 0b11110011) | 0b00001100;

Whoops, good catch. Thank you for that, and for the knowledge that I'm
not totally out to lunch!

> Which I think could also be written:
>
> (target & 0b11110011) |=3D 0b00001100;

Also good to know I should avoid this syntax.

Thanks!

Josh
--=20
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
        -Douglas Adams
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.