In article <1141795070.996033.1451.nullmailer@yamt.dyndns.org>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi  <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>> A brief description of each macro is below.
>> 
>>         BIT(n): Return a bitmask with bit m set, where the least
>>                 significant bit is bit 0.
>> 
>>         BITS(m, n): Return a bitmask with bits m through n, inclusive,
>>                     set.  It does not matter whether m>n or m<=n.
>>                     The least significant bit is bit 0.
>
>seem like too generic names to me.
>
>YAMAMOTO Takashi

And they are already causing conflicts [BITS is defined in zlib].
Maybe prefix all the generic names with BIT_?
BIT -> BIT_GET_MASK
BITS -> BIT_GET_MASK_BETWEEN
ISSET -> BIT_ISSET
CLR -> BIT_CLEAR
SET -> BIT_SET

etc.

christos