On Thursday, November 14, 2013 15:06:59 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 14/11/13 13:13, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > > I would say stay as close to the original C code as possible. Although I > > do > > prefer to translate typedefs like int8_t to real D types, like byte, if > > they exist. > In some ways I wonder why D's types aren't just specified according to the > number of bits -- int8, int16, int32, int64 instead of byte, short, int, > long. I suppose on balance it's probably less readable and easier to make > mistakes writing.
It's a stylistic choice, and Walter went with not putting the sizes in the type names. But since their sizes are still fixed, it doesn't really matter. > More generally -- is it considered desirable to provide not only the C-like > translation, but also a higher-level "D-ified" wrapper? Or is that > considered overkill for Deimos? Deimos is specifically for bindings to C libraries and _not_ for D-ified wrappers. And that's the stance that Walter has taken when it's come up. But with dub and code.dlang.org, it should be simple enough to put a D-ified wrapper in a place where folks can find it. - Jonathan M Davis
