On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:00:42 +0300, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from KennyTM~ ([email protected])'s article
On Dec 7, 09 01:24, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> Should we yank operator>>>?
>
> We can change it purpose and add the other one:
> <<< rotate left
>>>> rotate right
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
Well, we could get around this by making >>> an error for a few
releases, and then
only after everyone's removed their >>>s that mean unsigned shift, we
could drop
in the rotate semantics.
Why not just make an instrinsic function for that? Is it *really* used
that often to deserve a unique identifier?
