> Le 18 mars 2016 à 07:03, Haravikk via swift-evolution 
> <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 
> Since the trap represents a possible mistake, I think it’s better to keep it. 
> However, we could have &<< and &>> operators that return the suggested 
> defaults? This would also be more explicit that there is extra behaviour on 
> the operation (so it may be a tiny bit slower than << and >>).

Behaviour-wise, this &operator would be quite different that the other ones, as 
it doesn't handle overflow of the result, but an invalid rhs. If the meaning of 
&operator is that  flexible, I think it may be better to use &<< and &>> for 
the missing rotate operator. I cannot say that I have ever had a use for rotate 
in high level language, but it have been quite useful in assembly.

Dany

> 
>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 05:34, Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Currently, bit shifting with an amount greater than or equal to the size of 
>> the type traps:
>> 
>> func foo(x: Int32) {
>>   let y = x << 32 // Runtime trap (for any << or >> with amount >= 32)
>> }
>> 
>> I propose to make this not trap, and just end up with 0 (or ~0 in case of 
>> right-shifting a negative number):
>> Unlike the traps for integer arithmetic and casts, it is obvious what a 
>> bitshift past the end does as fundamentally the behavior stays the same.
>> If the intention is to make it analogous with multiplication/division by 
>> 2**n, the checks don't really change anything. Right shift are still 
>> identical to divisions by 2**n. Left shifts are like multiplication by 2**n 
>> but with different overflow behavior, which is already the case with the 
>> current rules (e.g. Int.max << 1 doesn't trap)
>> It could lead to bugs where users expect this to work, e.g. the following 
>> crashes when the entire buffer is consumed: buffer = buffer << bitsConsumed
>> Bitshift are often used in performance-sensitive code, and with the current 
>> behavior any non-constant bit shift introduces a branch.
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to