The fact that it has been addressed many times before doesn't
make it any less idiotic.
For example 'Int16' seems identical to 'short'
'UInt16' seems identical to 'unsigned short'
'Int32' seems identical to 'long'
"UInt32' seems identical to 'unsigned long'
I know that using 'int' is sometimes risky because there's a compiler
flag (in MetroWerks) for 2 or 4 byte 'int's, but 'long' and 'short' are
very specific in size. And there's a semi-implemented 'long long' for
8 byte integer variables.
Some of the 'void*' rationalizations are valid, but as someone
who programs in C++, 'void*' is undesirable anyway.
And I'd finally got used to using CharPtr...........
Anyway, it is all water under the bridge and you just have to take
the bad with the good.
(Please don't think I'm trying to start up a thread here, `cos
I won't be sorry if nobody responds)
Roger Stringer
Marietta Systems, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Palm OS 3.5 Types
>From: Dan Hewins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:02:20 -0500
>X-Message-Number: 78
>Forgive me if this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it
>in all of my emails.
>What's the point of introducing these new types anyway? Why not just
>use short, long, unsigned char, char*, etc? Is there a reason for
>all of this?
>Thanks,
>Dan Hewins
>Synergy Solutions, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palm.com/devzone/mailinglists.html
