Pip Cet wrote:
> 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?

I think Eli was suggesting reverting lsh to the traditional behavior for 
fixnums, for backwards-compatibility reasons.

There doesn't seem to be a good way to extend this behavior for bignums, so I 
installed the attached patch that simply makes it an error to invoke (lsh A B) 
where A is a negative bignum and B is negative. This patch also adds some test 
cases inspired by one of your previous emails (thanks).