Well, there I disagree. All of these operations take integers and produce other integers. As we've discussed, the bitwise operators resemble multiplication or addition in particular ways; not so different at all. This is IMO a weak argument because you're arguing gradations of "so different", which is entirely subjective in the end.<br><br>What I'm saying is that I would be mildly in favor of your proposal because I can justify it on the basis of something black-and-white: conflicting "levels" at which these operators work on integers (collection of bits vs. element in the set of all integers) and the concomitant differences regarding when these operators trap.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 16:49 Anton Zhilin <<a href="mailto:antonyzhilin@gmail.com">antonyzhilin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2016-08-03 0:46 GMT+03:00 Xiaodi Wu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It's not that << will overflow and / will not. Substitute * for / and the argument would be the same. The difference is that << traps when you shift more than the total number of bits but does *not* trap when you shift numbers off as would arithmetic exponentiation; * traps on overflow. Thus, what << is concerned about is the bits (as it should), but * is concerned about the max representable value.</blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Substitute * for / and my argument would also be the same :)</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>