On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 22:55:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2013 2:23 PM, bearophile wrote:
- D integer types have guaranteed sizes, but
they're not obvious from the name
- Why not have int8, uint8, int32, uint32, etc. in
default namespace, encourage their use?
I agree. It's hard to guess the size and signedness of types
as byte, ubyte,
wchar, dchar. I prefer names that are more clear.
It would only be a trivial problem for 5 minutes, only for
ex-C/C++ programmers who are used to suffering under variable
sized ints, and will never be a problem again.
Is it really a problem to guess the size of 'byte'? Or that
'ubyte' is unsigned? Come on, bearophile!
And frankly, int32, long64, etc., have a large 'yech' factor
for me.
Besides, if you really do want them,
import core.stdc.stdint;
It was a relief to go from C++ to D and be guaranteed the sizes.
No 'u' is signed, 'u' is unsigned, simple as simple gets. Took me
a little while to learn and adjust, but not much.
I didn't know about core.stdc.stdint; I may use it for the few
cases where the size is very important with no room for
erroneously choosing the wrong one.
Slam dunk!
--rt
