Ales Katona wrote: > I think that pascal typesystem requires a bit overhaul when it comes to > integers. > > First of all Integer should be size independent, that is, xy bits > depending on the platform. All others should be specific.
I agree with an application wide integer/cardinal type, but there should exist a way to get integers of a minimum size, as required by a specific program. One may use range types for that purpose, which the compiler can extend to the next "optimal" byte count, but doing so should not result in too much range checking. > Second, we should "force people in a friendly way" to use more readible > names like: > sint32, uint64, etc. than "cardinal" Not necessarily, when integer and cardinal for themselves are sufficient. What's the reason for using explicitly sized variables, of different sizes? I can see only one purpose, in the I/O of records in binary files. But with regards to different byte orders, reading structured blocks of binary information is not portable. > In a few years when 64 bits are normal, what will cardinal become? who > knows.. 32 bit integers will continue to be sufficient for most purposes. Arrays with more elements are not very likely in the next few years, 64 bit integers will be restricted to few special purposes (file size). DoDi _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
