i think that go's scalar types would work better. also usize is a bit dicky.
brucee On Nov 22, 2012 12:23 PM, "erik quanstrom" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed Nov 21 19:19:21 EST 2012, [email protected] wrote: > > hola, > > > > usize, really? > > > > any reason not use this opportunity to join the world and use inttypes.h > or stdint.h format? > > have you read the opengroup pubs? > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/stdint.h.html > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/basedefs/inttypes.h.html > > i don't see any advantage to using whatever types these guys are using. > when porting things from plan 9, it's good to have different type names. > the assumptions of various systems differ. when porting things to plan 9, > you're likely going to be using ape anyway. > > these headers are missing a type representing physical memory, and Rune. > no, i'm never going to consider using wchar_t instead. > > yet they have types we do not want such as int_{least,fast} and int_max_t. > they seem to be a trap set by greybeards for unsuspecting young > programmers. > one could hold this kind of thing up as a reason that c is an old and > broken language. > > and then there's the printf macros. oh, joy. > > i'm sure that others could back this up with more inteligent reasoning. > i'm just > prone to rant (had you noticed) when i see some of this stuff. > > - erik > >
