#663: Fixed bitcount operations

[VedWhat]

This PR attempts to close #663 however I realised rewrite would be a better option. This passes all tests under tcl (only for bitcount) and all integration tests. While this also fixes other issues, I don't want to overstep.

I've added comments wherever necessary but can elaborate wherever necessary

What has changed?

• Added better argument validation
• Changed counting in a loop to count using a bitmask
• Added better handling of start and end indices.

@lucifercr07 as mentioned, this does fix the other bitcount issues, lmk what you think. I believe this is a better way to fix the errors (fixing a single test would've made it messier if you get what I mean)

Happy to change the approach just to fix the single test.

[lucifercr07]

LGTM, it's more cleaner than prior implementation.
@JyotinderSingh shall we merge this?

@VedWhat on other note what are your thoughts on using go inbuilt function i.e. OnesCount8 rather than the popcount implementation?

[JyotinderSingh]

LGTM. Few minor comments.

[VedWhat]

LGTM, it's more cleaner than prior implementation. @JyotinderSingh shall we merge this?

@VedWhat on other note what are your thoughts on using go inbuilt function i.e. OnesCount8 rather than the popcount implementation?

Nice, makes sense to use a lookup instead of any operations. Made the change!

[JyotinderSingh]

LGTM, it's more cleaner than prior implementation. @JyotinderSingh shall we merge this?

@VedWhat on other note what are your thoughts on using go inbuilt function i.e. OnesCount8 rather than the popcount implementation?

Nice, makes sense to use a lookup instead of any operations. Made the change!

thanks, could you take a look at the linter issues too?

[VedWhat]

LGTM, it's more cleaner than prior implementation. @JyotinderSingh shall we merge this?

@VedWhat on other note what are your thoughts on using go inbuilt function i.e. OnesCount8 rather than the popcount implementation?

Nice, makes sense to use a lookup instead of any operations. Made the change!

thanks, could you take a look at the linter issues too?

right, was pushing with a no-verify due to an issue. already pushed the change.