Comment Comment by gus_massa From the article:> (x & c1) | (x & c1) == x & (c1 | c2)Is this a typo? Shoud the second c1 be c2 instead? parent gus_massa 2 years ago
> (x & c1) | (x & c1) == x & (c1 | c2)
Is this a typo? Shoud the second c1 be c2 instead?