> On Sunday 17 April 2005 10:45, Ales Katona wrote: > > First of all Integer should be size independent, that is, xy bits > > depending on the platform. > > I second that.
It is now. It just happens to be the same. However keep in mind that the strict integer=wordsize bond of the past no longer goes. On most 64-bit systems, integer is _not_ 64-bit. Mostly because it only unnecessary drives up memory consumption. > > Second, we should "force people in a friendly way" to use more > > readible names like: > > sint32, uint64, etc. than "cardinal" > > No. Such stuff is only needed when you do hardware-interfacing. > And that's the _only_ reason someone would need types with defined > bit-sizes. That's a bit simplistic; Network/system interfacing, binary fileformats ? > > In a few years when 64 bits are normal, what will cardinal become? > > who knows.. > > That's why Pascal has range types. Define the range you need, and don't > use "just some type" which has the range you think you will need. I actually tried this in a major app at work. In theory it is nice However quite a lot of datastructures get written to disc sooner and later, and to get fileformats size independant, you need a lot of datastructure conversions (from records with fields that have arch dependant size to packed records with fields with fixed sized integer types). _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
