>Hi,
>has anybody else discovered that bit shifting of negative numbers is
>broken? Although the comment in Integer>>bitShift: says that it shifts
>the two's complement, it's actually doing one's complement shifting,
>i.e.
>	(-1 bitShift: 1) = -2
>which is plain wrong. Unfortunately, if I correct the
>SmallInteger>>bitShift: method, LargeInteger division breaks. And I
>don't want to mess with Integer>>digitDiv:neg: !


Hans-Martin -

It would be easy enough to make 
	a bitShift: b
produce 
	(a negated bitShift: b) negated 
if a is negative, and I would even be willing to dig into the problem in LargeInteger division.

HOWEVER, before doing that, there is a theoretical issue that I would want to hear some agreement on from the NAG (numerics affinity group -- you know hwo you are ;-).  The issue is this:  if folks are going to bitShift a number, then they are probably going to bitAnd it, too.  Now, normally, "2's complement" is only defined with regard to some number of bits, since the sign bit is one of the bits, and you have to agree on where it will show up.  Some of the Squeak code, inherited from ST-80, believes in 32-bit two's complement, to wit:
	(-2 bitAnd: 16rFF) hex = '16rFE'
and
 	(-2 bitAnd: 16rFFFFFFFFF) hex = '16rFFFFFFFE'.
Why did ANDing with -2 shorten the second number, but not the first?  Because -2 is 32 bits long in SOME parts of Squeak.

THEREFORE I would propose simply to forbid all bit manipulation on negative numbers, and fix the problems that crop up.  This is the only way I see to avoid the problem of how negative numbers are represented in Squeak (which happens to be different for small and large integers!).  Besides LI division, there may be a couple of places in the InterpreterSimulator where we are manipulating 32-bit words, but I would be willing to fix these, too.

Use positive numbers for bit patterns.
Use divide to divide numbers, and bitShift to manipulate bit patterns.

Comments?

	- Dan