Hi, Jonathan, I do not agree. Considering that << is R-to-L, whereas >> is L-to-R, then if even << only is R-to-L with respect to the order of slices while preserving the order within each slice, I see no logic in >>, an L-to-R operator, suddenly becoming R-to-L within the slice. Regards, Shalom > { << 3 { abcdef } } == defabc // reverse order of slices, > // keep order within each slice > { >> 3 { abcdef } } == abcdef // simple packing > > In fact, the [slice_size] operand has absolutely no > effect for >>. Was this always the intent? Surely > it would be more symmetrical, reasonable and useful > for >> likewise to respect the slice size... > > { >> 3 { abcdef } } == cbafed // keep order of slices, > // reverse order within each slice -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jun 21 01:24:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 21 2007 - 01:25:33 PDT