Come on original Slang developers. 'Fess up. I need to know what your thought process was in making shifts unsigned so that I can change it without too much hard work. Pretty please.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eliot Miranda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi All,<div><br></div><div> I'm being bitten by Slang's treatment of bitShift: & >>. In both cases (generateBitShift:on:indent: & generateShiftRight:on:indent:) Slang generates an unsigned shift by explicitly casting the shifted expression to usqInt. I can understand the benefit of having an unsigned shift. But there are times when one really needs a signed shift. Further, the Smalltalk versions of both bitShift: and >> are signed shifts.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Dare I change e.g. generateShiftRight:on:indent: to leave the expression alone and generate either a signed or an unsigned shift based on the variable's declaration? Or must I live with a maddening cCode: '(signed)' inSmalltalk: [] carbuncle?</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>E.</div>
</font></blockquote></div><br>