RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

> -Original Message- > From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:andi@;zend.com] > Sent: 30 October 2002 19:26 > > I think you guys have convinced me that having >>> only isn't too bad > (Jason will kill me now). > Does anyone here on php-dev have any additional thoughts? Well, although I think it's a

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

Jason T. Greene writes: > Ok, > > I hereby volunteer to update the documentation to clearly > explain shifting (with examples). Excellent! That way, I can't stop losing sleep wondering what the heck someone would need this stuff for. :) Best Regards Mike Robinson -- PHP Development Mailing

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

Ok, I hereby volunteer to update the documentation to clearly explain shifting (with examples). -Jason On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 14:05, James Cox wrote: > We're going to walk into a confusion where people will expect <<< to work > too, and get bitten. We have to be really careful that we explain it

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 13:26, Andi Gutmans wrote: > I think you guys have convinced me that having >>> only isn't too bad Great, I really think this is the way to go! > (Jason will kill me now) /me kills Andi Just kidding, I am just glad we can come to an agreement, so I can start working on a p

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

At 08:05 PM 10/30/2002 +, James Cox wrote: We're going to walk into a confusion where people will expect <<< to work too, and get bitten. We have to be really careful that we explain it properly. That was my initial worry too. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List To

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

We're going to walk into a confusion where people will expect <<< to work too, and get bitten. We have to be really careful that we explain it properly. -- james > > I think you guys have convinced me that having >>> only isn't too bad > (Jason will kill me now). > Does anyone here on php-dev ha

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

I think you guys have convinced me that having >>> only isn't too bad (Jason will kill me now). Does anyone here on php-dev have any additional thoughts? I just want to point out that what convinced me wasn't the "anyone who knows twos complement would know that blah blah blah" argument. Don't f

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 09:51, David M. Lloyd wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > At 02:49 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote: > > > > >The reality of twos-complement, bitwise arithmatic is that there are > > >three basic shift operations: shift left, bitwise shift right,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 02:49 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote: > > >The reality of twos-complement, bitwise arithmatic is that there are > >three basic shift operations: shift left, bitwise shift right, and > >arithmetic shift right. This simple fact is one of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

At 02:49 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote: On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Jason knows that my stand on this one is that if we have >>> we really > should also have <<< which will clash with here-docs. Suggestions for > other operators such as his are a possibility. Wron

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Unsigned Problems Revisited

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Jason knows that my stand on this one is that if we have >>> we really > should also have <<< which will clash with here-docs. Suggestions for > other operators such as his are a possibility. Wrong on two counts. The reality of twos-complement, bit