[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: bug#32463: 27.0.50; (logior -1) => 4611686018427387903
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:59:07 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

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.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]