yank '>>>'?

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-12-06 12:36:49 -0500, dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com> said:

> == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS at lycos.com)'s article
>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>> Should we yank operator>>>?
>> We can change it purpose and add the other one:
>> <<< rotate left
>>>>> rotate right
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
> 
> This is a good idea, although rotate may be seldom enough used not to 
> warrant its
> own (possibly overloadable) operator.  std.intrinsic might be a better 
> place for
> rotate.  On the other hand, rotate is a single ASM instruction, at 
> least on x86.
> In a close to the metal language, there needs to be a straightforward, 
> efficient
> way to access it.

The first time I searched for a way to rotate bits, I searched for an 
operator and didn't find one (it was in C++ I think). So I wrote my own 
function; it wasn't worth the time searching further.

I support <<< and >>> for rotate left and right, as an operator is the 
most obvious place to look for such a basic operation.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/