<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-11-23 0:56 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:btc@openinworld.com" target="_blank">btc@openinworld.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Chris Muller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com" target="_blank">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Bert,<span class=""><br>
<br>
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bert Freudenberg <<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de" target="_blank">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 21.11.2014, at 23:01, Eliot Miranda uploaded VMMaker.oscog-eem.950.mcz<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Introduce >>> as an explicitly signed shift.<br>
</blockquote>
Ugh, can we pick something else, please? It's really confusing. In various languages (notably Java and JavaScript), >> is signed and >>> unsigned. I don't know any language that has both operators and the meaning reversed.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is confused because of history. What I'd like is to use >> as a signed shift (because that's what it is) and >>> as an unsigned shift. And I'd like to change bitShift: to generate signed shifts and introduce unsignedBitShift: and ditch signedBitShift:. But that means changing all uses of >> in VMMaker. This would be my preferred solution but I think its *really* important that if we go this route we change VMMaker.oscog, VMMaker and VMMakerJS at the same time. Can we synchronise this?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
And >> still means signed or unsigned depending on context. Not nice at all.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right. And there's the signedBitShift: bogosity too.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
How about ...<br>
<br>
>> signed/unsigned depending on type (what we have now)<br>
>>+ force unsigned shift<br>
>>- force signed shift<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's funny. For me the + screams signed.<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
Berts made more sense to me simply because signed support<br>
negatives(-), where unsigned only support positive(+)..<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Revising my previous suggestion...<br>
>>> force unsigned<br>
>>- force signed<br>
<br>
cheers -ben<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">As a latin, writing the most significant bit to least significant from left to right, and the sign leftmost, I would suggest ->> to suggest how we propagate the minus sign bit...<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Nicolas<br></div></div>