> And hell, GCC already includes a lot of really really obscure > builtin functions which are one hell of a lot less common & useful > than multiply-hi&lo.
Which exactly proves the point that people are making: whether something is "common & useful" is rarely the criteria that's used in deciding whether a language should include that thing. > And that isn't because I failed to "learn basic principles about > language design." Sorry, but it precisely is.
