Didn't I see an operator list a while back that featured sign-extending shift?
If not, I apologize. But on the other hand, we could make a ~>>> operator that was a "case-preserving indent" :-) =Austin --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote: > : But the presence of the >>> operator > > Er, *what* >>> operator? > > : (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise > rotation? > : Will that be the (( and )) operators?) > > I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs. > Seriously, let's not make the $( and $) mistake again. > > : means that signed/unsigned conversions need to be thought out. > : > : Is 0xDEADBEEF >>> 3 going to be positive or negative? > > Depends on whether you're a vegetarian. Personally I consider it > to be a positive. Perl 5 seems to concur. > > Larry > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
