On Thursday 07 November 2013 08:45:00 Ivanko B wrote: > against the bit numbers in type names. > ========================== > Sure. Defined globally : > type > uint8 = integer 0..127; // uint8 > [..] > > Me just want to leave as low number of base types as possible so that > they only express nature and arbitary (not only 2pwr*) boundaries of > variables that's what programmers really want. The compiler may > analize type defintions and ranges and then to assign whatever types > it finds correct. > And I want that signedness and size of the types always is visible so anybody knows what he/she does. " unit systypes; type uint8 = $00..$ff; uint16 = $0000..$ffff; ... " If you like define " integer = -$80000000..$7fffffff; " Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
