NOT

[mark4th]

I cannot remember if it was the 79 standard or the 83 standard that had a broken definition for NOT but it was fixed in the 83 standard which Tom Zimmers FPC conformed to. The definition for NOT that you have is the old, broken definition which is simply a test for equality with zero. NOT should always be a ones complement : not -1 xor ;

FPC had a correct definition for NOT though of course it was a coded definition there :)

I wont express how I actually feel about the ans standard teams complete screw up of attempting to fix this HUGE NON PROBLEM of there beting two different definitions for the same word in the wild. :)