On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Felix Klock wrote: > I see how your first paragraph provides evidence for your conclusion > with respect to page 42, but page 38 is part of the specification for > the (r6rs arithmetic fx) library, where the numbers are specified to > have definite length, and therefore a hypothetical fxlogical-shift > operation is not meaningless. > > Do you have a separate justification for your suggested changes to > page 38?
No. The renaming of fxarithmetic-shift is for consistency with bitwise-arithmetic-shift on the assumption that names in (r6rs arithmetic fx) should track names elsewhere in the standard. I think this is a better approach than either allowing the two names to diverge or keeping the current unwieldy names. In particular, I think that fxlogical-shift would be a conceptually substantially uglier operation than fxarithmetic-shift, and that it's thus perfectly OK for it to have an uglier name. -- Ben Harris _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
