<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:31, Nicolas Cellier <<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Edgar, Hi Marcel,</div><div><div></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>Pharo team probably wanted to lower the gap with some mainstream languages and provide same kind of "operators"...</div><div>IMO, we don't need two ways to do the same thing, and we should better let that out of Squeak.</div><div>I suggest using an optional package if compatibility matters.<br></div><div>
<br><div><div>However, note that for VMMaker << and >> are directed shifts and it makes a big difference.</div><div>The code generated for bitShift: has to check the sign of the shift and that ain't good.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Apologies to divert to a Pharo query but it should be quick (even if I'm looking at the code I might not know...)</div><div>Is Pharo's #<< and #>> equivalent to VMMaker #<< and #>> ?</div><div> </div><div>cheers -ben</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>
</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 23 mai 2020 à 21:50, Edgar De Cleene <<a href="mailto:edgardec2005@gmail.com" target="_blank">edgardec2005@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Of course you right <div>But Pharo have this<br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 23 May 2020, at 12:37, Marcel Taeumel <<a href="mailto:marcel.taeumel@hpi.de" target="_blank">marcel.taeumel@hpi.de</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div id="gmail-m_-4084319785414408444gmail-m_8866488038187878365__MailbirdStyleContent" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Yes, the bit-wise operators from C translate to #bit*: messages in Smalltalk.<div><br></div><div>However, ages ago, someone started to support #>> and #<< on Integer for bit shifting. So, it is somewhat inconsistent.</div><div><br></div><div>Even though there are & and | in Boolean, most of the time, the code reads better with #and: or #or:. It can be challenging already to teach students the difference between "expOne or: [expTwo]" and "expOne or: (expTwo)". Adding & and | to the mix is not helpful. :-D</div><div><br></div><div>Next step would be to support #ifTrue:ifFalse: on Integer? Please, don't. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Marcel</div><div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-top:20px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px">
<p style="color:rgb(170,170,170);margin-top:10px">Am 23.05.2020 14:12:47 schrieb K K Subbu <<a href="mailto:kksubbu.ml@gmail.com" target="_blank">kksubbu.ml@gmail.com</a>>:</p><div style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On 23/05/20 3:18 pm, Edgar De Cleene wrote:<br>> Seems<br>> Integer>>#|<br>> <br>> Is not in Squeak 6.0 .<br>> Any reason ?<br>AFAIK, #| has always been boolean or operator in Smalltalk. The bitwise <br>or is #bitOr: as in:<br><br> 2r1011 bitOr: 2r101 "15"<br><br>HTH .. Subbu<br><br></div></blockquote>
</div><span></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>