Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: It's the current behaviour that seems arbitrary to me: a >> b is well- defined, and efficiently computable, for any integer a and nonnegative integer b; it seems odd to have an unnecessary and (from a user's viewpoint) arbitrary limit on the size of b. It's simple to have the operation always succeed, and this seems to me like both the least surprising, and the most correct, thing to do.
On the other hand, I can't really think of any real-world uses for large shifts: I'm guessing that in applications a shift of more than 63 or so must be rare. So it probably doesn't matter that much one way or another. Changing the limit on the shift to sys.maxsize rather than LONG_MAX would seem to make some sense, though. __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2804> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
