yank '>>>'?

[Simen kjaeraas]

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:11:16 +0100, Jerry Quinn <jlquinn at optonline.net>  
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
>

I was thinking <<> and <>>. They represent the fact that some bits end up
on the wrong side. Still, I don't think there're enough use cases for an
operator.

-- 
Simen