"Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" > >> No, because the operands of bitshift operators aren't balanced to a common type. > > > > Where does it say that? Your word isn't quite enough for me :-(. > > You've already been told that 6.5.7 says "The integer promotions are > performed on each of the operands. " and says nothing about > conversions. If that were a valid mode of reasoning it would apply to the operands of arithmetic operators to which conversion IS applied. (Which are they?) Ergo, it is not. No flowers in this instance :-(. Is there somewhere where it DOES say that conversions should be applied to SOMETHING? > > It doesn't require the rules to be applied, it only talks about WHEN > > they are applied. It leaves it open as to to which operators that > > the conversion rules are to be appled to. > > The specification of each operator tells you if it's applied. 6.5.7 > doesn't say they are, so they aren't. I don't have a "specification of each operator" to look at ... probably it doesn't junp out from google for me as easily as other stuff does. I wonder if I could I ask you to quote the ">>" specification for my lazy self? Perhaps also let me know what else conversion does and does not apply to? BTW, NOT saying something is applied in a specification should not mean that it is forbidden, as a general principle of specification languages. Is there somewhere in the C specification general blurb that says "no say, no do"? I admit my reason for supposing PROMOTION is not done was because I could find no rule that says to. But in that matter I am willing to believe it can or cannot be done in some (other) compiler implementation, whatever it should amount to in that case. Not doing is what happens with gcc. > > No, I conclude whatever is logically required, and point out false > > aka mistaken logic where it is attempted. I don't mind what answer > > you or I get, so long as it is reasoned correctly, or at least > > convincingly. > > > > I haven't yet seen a constructive argument towards what I see as > > the probable out - that >> is just one of the 3 or 4 exceptions. > > Then you're not paying attention. You seem loathe to quote where it says that conversion MAY NOT or MUST NOT be applied to the arguments of >>. Unfortunately I can't work off word of mouth. Which of may or must not is it, since you know! > > If the operand that has unsigned integer type has rank greater than > > or equal to the rank of the type of the other operand, the operand > > with signed integer type is converted to the type of the operand with > > unsigned integer type. > > > > So / and likely % (yes?) are likely other exceptions. > > Is there somewhere in the standard where it SAYS ... Regards and thanks PTB
