[email protected], el 27 de enero a las 01:15 me escribiste: > 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,...
They are already there: #include <stdint.h> int32_t, uint32_t, etc. Sorry but C (and C++ in this case inherits C stdlib) uses the _t suffix for typedefs. Other than that, I think is a good idea, even if every pull request is broken. But then, who cares about what I think? :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bald men with no jobs and no money who live with their parents don't approach strange women. -- George Constanza _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
