> On Dec 19, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> +1 to dropping the existing signatures and providing a consistent right-hand >> side. >> >> I'm a little concerned about not allowing Int as the shift type. Even though >> we disallow negative shifts, we generally encourage using 'Int' as the >> "vocabulary" type for integers, which means any shift by a non-constant >> amount might require a conversion. I do see that BigInts may be shifted by >> more than 2^64, however, so hardcoding Int wouldn't be right either. > > Unless it is somehow sparsely encoded, a bigint with more than 2^64 bits > couldn’t be held in memory.
I don't believe bit shifting should be supported for BigInt anyway. The lossy semantics of bit shifting is pretty closely tied to fixed-width integers. -Dave
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
