From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#32463: 27.0.50; (logior -1) => 4611686018427387903 Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:58:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <86mutll4w2.fsf@gmail.com> <3a6f17af-018e-cb0b-5182-cf736b3a814c@cs.ucla.edu> <83a7pjfql6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1534622297 17433 195.159.176.226 (18 Aug 2018 19:58:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, 32463@debbugs.gnu.org To: eliz@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 18 21:58:12 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7MS-0004LM-DO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:58:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40318 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7OX-0007CL-AC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7OJ-00078K-UM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:00:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7OG-0007vW-D9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49256) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7OG-0007vL-9W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7OG-0000TA-4F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:00:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Pip Cet Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:00:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32463 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 32463-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B32463.15346223661627 (code B ref 32463); Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:00:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 32463) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Aug 2018 19:59:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54273 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7Ne-0000Q8-DB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:59:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lj1-f179.google.com ([209.85.208.179]:47033) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fr7Nb-0000PZ-Ua for 32463@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lj1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 203-v6so8796735ljj.13 for <32463@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UShtSfDc2nSsApwUZVXNycWptUiy1+YZYUdCua01v2k=; b=XHNrICMquF8fSDpclq3FKjh231HKXlfRvaJgXikXB12AktmAgaSgDt26lfz3fAghr6 a0R0XjyI/iPm3Mpd5/RFJ8IRx/3g+QhaRRI+zi2g15iutHxE/bdNCQC/s/K903klUDEY zieC+98Ga/+cSRdjEmfSZPLXE8cqC8zhlEQQJG6CNcpjoylkKSCqvli66JKoM+WOtq+c taLTnNLBcRvRsxW2vAEUKkfJEFw8vZQNBDD0ap5mHrfSS1rKhlpLqBrzkVUsjM5cRlgZ LC9ouofccOORgbVUMRYO7IDdZzdOFG/2LV5YeU2hMUfcADAuP1xTmUL4J3DFcjct36UG k4fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UShtSfDc2nSsApwUZVXNycWptUiy1+YZYUdCua01v2k=; b=JDB+iDkzWTGGLnmmCuz7UzTgN3wbqUWiQv/Fl3r4Cv1pqDxHkfcBOnVVGHX1EXsySI OQhz6lCqDqkKNMxawiE2l1zvtvC9vDv4UKCH7Prnu9/EKP2padP+sYMkMkkfgPpYzcDN Tv+evaeGdN39BcCuFY6W+2FSlQPsG7uM5x5dA8ppUdTAbHnzgzhglXzPUfjSl2OR90gU nWqXx2V0LJhEjaLCcxP/j3Ehbk27zNPXVNOiF6rwYv9dxzRmePl4V9TC/rLHNZz1GIa5 VCPzSfSOHH2EdO1tkIsi0Doco+DXQ/6h85EVWTjs7aoixuzGrcKDKa/eKTi/vi+7QE+B e6qA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFK/l3iwk135gB5iAENEuzFpiZQtgN46JEzlUdT3URDE6c4t/5+ kJWmfXTlioCd1U4tQnA03PUZ3BdAQeuvgnAoU5Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxRobMoHaOCfaiA6HxEgrwibo21JrK+k4EeQcGN3AC9//hqIFfazU6r0w1CVx9VGjfai/jaxc/EnXvJo9REjrs= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:712:: with SMTP id 18-v6mr29046054ljh.101.1534622358134; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83a7pjfql6.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:149580 Archived-At: On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 7:00 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Paul Eggert > > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 11:48:11 -0700 > > Cc: 32463@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > It would be weird for lsh to act one way for negative bignums, and a different > > and incompatible way for negative fixnums. Instead, I suggest that we deprecate > > lsh, as it doesn't make sense any more now that integers have unbounded size. > > It is IMO absurd for us to deprecate a valid and useful operation just > because we added bignums. If we cannot agree on its semantics for > bignums (which would surprise me), then it is better to make it not > work for bignums at all than deprecate it for fixnums. The recent code changes made `lsh' behave the same as `ash' for fixnums, if I understand correctly. Are you suggesting we revert to the previous behavior, and try to come up with an interpretation for bignums that somehow extends the previous behavior? (In any case, the current code for bignums is inconsistent for the low-order bits that should be unaffected by whatever convention we choose).