yank '>>>'?

Denis Koroskin 2korden at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 12:08:04 PST 2009


On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:00:42 +0300, dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com> wrote:

> == Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm at gmail.com)'s article
>> On Dec 7, 09 01:24, bearophile wrote:
>> > Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> >> Should we yank operator>>>?
>> >
>> > We can change it purpose and add the other one:
>> > <<<  rotate left
>> >>>> rotate right
>> >
>> > Bye,
>> > bearophile
>> No, it will _silently_ break code that uses >>> as unsigned right shift.
>
> Well, we could get around this by making >>> an error for a few  
> releases, and then
> only after everyone's removed their >>>s that mean unsigned shift, we  
> could drop
> in the rotate semantics.

Why not just make an instrinsic function for that? Is it *really* used  
that often to deserve a unique identifier?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list