On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 08:32 PM, Michael Walter wrote:
If a library user wants his archives to be portable he has to use int8_t, int16_t, etc.. for all data integral types that he wants to portably serialize. Having those types in the interface might help making users aware of the fact that they should use those types if they want their serialized archives to be portable. However just emphasizing this at a prominent place in the documentation might be enough.DG> Robert Ramey wrote:DG> For who would it be less natural to use int32_t, etc instead of int,We should discuss whether to use short, int, long ... as the primitive
types or int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t. The latter makes it easier
to write portable archives, the former seems more natural. I can
accept both choices but we should not mix the two as is done now.
DG> etc? Not the end user of the archive, right? And I think the writer of
DG> the archive would be more concerned with portability. And even he/she is
DG> not, the burden is not that great, is it?
DG> AFAICT the advantages of int32_t etc outweigh the disadvantages. But
DG> perhaps I'm missing something?
DG> Regards,
DG> Dirk Gerrits
If you aim for portability, you can simply use int8_t, int16_t, etc.
in your implementation - no need to use it in the archive interfaces
as far as I get it. Sorry if I miss the point :)
Matthias
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
