Don't even think about it.

Cheers,
 - Andreas

Eliot Miranda wrote:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,

   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.

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?

E.