On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Simon Marlow <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/04/2012 17:46, Ian Lynagh wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 04:58:14PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hmm, I indended lnat to be shorthand for "unsigned long". I'd much >>> rather we used size_t when we mean that, and keep lnat as meaning >>> "unsigned long". >> >> >> I'm certainly happy with using size_t instead of lnat. >> >> When should lnat be used, though? When would you want a 32-bit value on >> Windows/x86_64, but a 64-bit value on Linux/x86_64? > > > That's a good point. I'd be ok with lnat being 64 bits on Windows/x64.
'long', 'int', size_t, carry uncertainty about their precisions. Any reason not to use the sized integer types (where available, but these days they are on all platforms that GHC cares about.) In general, I would use 'int', 'long', etc. only when mandated by the host system APIs. Everywhere else I would be explicit about the integer type precision -- unless it really does not matter. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
