Tim Peters <[email protected]> added the comment:
Nick, that seems a decent compromise. "Infinite string of sign bits" is how
Guido & I both thought of it when the semantics of longs were first defined,
and others in this report apparently find it natural enough too. It also
applies to all 6 operations in the table as-is.
It appears that
a bit-width of ``1 + max(x.bit_length(), y.bit_length()``
only applies as-is to 3 (~ has only one operand, while the bit length of the
RHS doesn't matter for << and >>). Provided that's clarified, I'd only suggest
inserting "at least" before "one extra sign extension bit" and after "a
bit-width of". That's a bridge between the "infinite" and
"fixed-albeit-variable-width" views: "plus 1" is the smallest approximation to
infinity that works, but anything at least that large works too.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue29710>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
