bug#32463: 27.0.50; (logior -1) => 4611686018427387903

[Paul Eggert]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > we can make (lsh A B) signal an error if A is a
> > bignum and B is negative, since there's nothing we can do there that is
> > reasonable and is compatible with the fixnum behavior.

> If that's the best we can do, fine.
OK, let's go that route.

> It is IMO absurd for us to deprecate a valid and useful operation just
> because we added bignums.

It would indeed be absurd if lsh were still valid and useful. However, because 
lsh assumes fixed-width integers its overall utility is negative for new Elisp 
code because it mostly just introduces opportunities for confusion. This is why 
Common Lisp and Scheme don't have lsh. Backward compatibility is the only reason 
Emacs Lisp should have lsh. (Obviously we can't simply remove lsh.)