yank '>>>'?

[KennyTM~]

On Dec 7, 09 09:11, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> == Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm at gmail.com)'s article
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It'll still silently break code moving from D1 to D2.
>
> Well, I could see the value of poviding a rotate operator.
>
> Since>>>  is tainted, what about>>@ and<<@ for integral rotation?
>
> Jerry
>

Why these must be implemented through additional operators?