Sure, the names used in dmd aren't particularly consistent... but do you really want to break every open pull request?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I've done a little bit of code cleanup, using bool where apprioriate, > reducing the memory footprint a bit, properly using enums/bitfields for > flags etc. > > Unfortunately there is no consistency in the types used in the code. > It even defines some types like d_uns32 but they are very sparsely used. > > Even worse there's > // Be careful not to care about sign when using dinteger_t <--- > typedef uint64_t dinteger_t; > typedef int64_t sinteger_t; > typedef uint64_t uinteger_t; > > virtual dinteger_t toInteger(); <--- > virtual uinteger_t toUInteger(); > > So there's practically no difference between those functions? What's the > deal? > Why the inexpressive aliases? > > I would personally love to have a set of types that look natural and clear > like in D, i.e. without some crappy prefix d_ or suffix _t like > int32,uint32,... > But in the end the point is to get some consistency. > Please comment. > _______________________________________________ > dmd-internals mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
