On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira <vini.ipsma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/5/2 <cpmicha...@comcast.net> > >> using 'unsigned int' rather than 'uin32_t' > > > Just curious, why the E coding standard forces this convention?
Quoting raster: > back when i was working on E like pre Dr0.13 i got complaints from irix users > that these were not available for their platform - i just remained shy of them > ever since as i could simply depend on a pseudo-standard that actually worked: > > char -> 8bit > short -> 16bit > int -> 32bit > long -> 3n2/64bit > long long -> 64bit. > void * -> 32/64bit > > everything i've ever needed has fitted into one of these (or there have been > special ways to do it - eg mmx/neon). as such due to history to keep > consistency everything follows this.if you start throwing in int32_t's and > bools and these types they will simply stand out as "look weird" in the api. -- Boris Faure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
