Simen kjaeraas Wrote: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:11:16 +0100, Jerry Quinn <jlqu...@optonline.net> > wrote: > > Well, I could see the value of poviding a rotate operator. > > > > Since >>> is tainted, what about >>@ and <<@ for integral rotation? > > I was thinking <<> and <>>. They represent the fact that some bits end up > on the wrong side. Still, I don't think there're enough use cases for an > operator.
I'd argue against <<> and <>> since they'd be very easy to misread and mistype. I can believe that an operator isn't necessary, but there should definitely be a standard way for folks to end up with single-asm instructions for rotation without resorting to ugliness. Consider PowerPC that has a whole collection of powerful rotation instructions.
