> How about (u)int32_t? When I was an Ada programmer, subtypes with the > approriate range were always encouraged (i.e.: define the semantical > range and let the compiler/runtime library warn you on range > violations (the well-known "CONSTRAINT_ERROR"))
It's OK to use a type with a fixed size when there is some real reason that you know exactly how many bits you need, but in my opinion it's much better to use plain int whenever possible. Otherwise you end up in a mess when different functions have parameters of different widths for no good reason, and you're also taking away the compiler's choice to use the most efficient size of integer. - R.
