Zoffix Znet via RT wrote:
>For record, all three of the problematic ones now throw. Is that the
>desired behaviour?
Not the desired behaviour, no. It's a massive improvement over giving
the wrong answer, and arguably fixes the bug qua bug, but it's still
less than awesome. It would be easy (and
Zoffix Znet via RT wrote:
>For record, all three of the problematic ones now throw. Is that the
>desired behaviour?
Not the desired behaviour, no. It's a massive improvement over giving
the wrong answer, and arguably fixes the bug qua bug, but it's still
less than awesome. It would be easy (and
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:34:42 -0800, zef...@fysh.org wrote:
> It seems to be intended (though it's not documented) that long bit shifts
> produce the mathematically correct answer:
>
> > 123 +> (1 +< 10)
> 0
>
> but for some particularly large right shift distances, this doesn't work:
>
> > 123
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:34:42 -0800, zef...@fysh.org wrote:
> It seems to be intended (though it's not documented) that long bit shifts
> produce the mathematically correct answer:
>
> > 123 +> (1 +< 10)
> 0
>
> but for some particularly large right shift distances, this doesn't work:
>
> > 123
