Shalom, 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. OK; I'm not sure I understand your chosen dominance of left-to-rightness over symmetry, but I don't have a strong opinion on it, and there is backward compatibility to consider. However, if we keep the existing definition of >> such that the slice_size is ignored, I urge that we should make it illegal for a slice_size to be specified with >>. That would at least leave the door open for future extensions in which the slice_size is significant, and could make the LRM text less confusing than it is now. Regards -- Jonathan Bromley -- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.Received on Thu Jun 21 04:48:46 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 21 2007 - 04:48:55 PDT