On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:11:16 +0100, Jerry Quinn <[email protected]>
wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from KennyTM~ ([email protected])'s article
>> 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.
It'll still silently break code moving from D1 to D2.
Well, I could see the value of poviding a rotate operator.
Since >>> is tainted, what about >>@ and <<@ for integral rotation?
Jerry
I was thinking <<> and <>>. They represent the fact that some bits end up
on the wrong side. Still, I don't think there're enough use cases for an
operator.
--
Simen
