yank '>>>'?

[Jerry Quinn]

Simen kjaeraas Wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:11:16 +0100, Jerry Quinn <jlquinn at optonline.net>  
> wrote:
> > Well, I could see the value of poviding a rotate operator.
> >
> > Since >>> is tainted, what about >>@ and <<@ for integral rotation?
> 
> 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.

I'd argue against <<> and <>> since they'd be very easy to misread and mistype.  I can believe that an operator isn't necessary, but there should definitely be a standard way for folks to end up with single-asm instructions for rotation without resorting to ugliness.  Consider PowerPC that has a whole collection of powerful rotation instructions.