At 02:49 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
I know that but I still wanted the opposite to be available to keep things symmetrical. I'm not sure but I think CPU's do support both logical and arithmetic shifts and just do the same with both (I might be wrong though).On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote:> Jason knows that my stand on this one is that if we have >>> we really > should also have <<< which will clash with here-docs. Suggestions for > other operators such as his <<<< are a possibility. Wrong on two counts. The reality of twos-complement, bitwise arithmatic is that there are three basic shift operations: shift left, bitwise shift right, and arithmetic shift right. This simple fact is one of the basic ideas of dealing with twos-complement integers.
Given this fact, there is no reason to have a bogus fourth operator in the name of symmetry. Mathematical operaters are simply not always symmetrical. There is no such thing as 'arithmetic shift left' or 'logical shift left' in terms of twos-complement integers, so why invent it?
I agree that they don't *have* to be symmetrical but I think it's better.
psychotic? Can we please have discussions on a professional and not personal level?Second of all, my understanding of the here-doc operator is that it acts as a unary operation. I don't see the conflict with the binary application of <<<, given the example of unary and binary -, if it is absolutely neccessary to fulfill the (somewhat psychotic) need for symmetry where it is not realy needed, or even strictly correct.
As far as I remember it does clash with here-docs. I'm pretty sure I thought of an example a while back. I can try and think of one again. In any case, I wouldn't want an overloaded operator. We try and keep away of that kind of stuff with PHP.
Andi
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
