<my 2c>
Personally, I really like the Int32-style of data types. It's reassuring to
know exactly how big your data is, every time you declare it.
Isn't the original intention of Int32 etc supposed to guarantee future
compatibility with other compilers/processors?
(i.e.: If 'long' is 64 bit on a 3rd party compiler, aren't you going to have
more troubles? It would be much easier to cope with such a situation if
you'd stuck with Int32.)
</my 2c>
PS: :) :) :) :) (Obligatory smileys - just for Aaron) ;-P
Regards,
Alan Ingleby
Systems Developer
ProfitLink Consulting Pty Ltd
309 Burwood Road
Hawthorn
Victoria 3122
Australia
"Timo Kinnunen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39143@palm-dev-forum...
>
> Aaron Ardiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > personally, the use of "char", "int" etc in Palm programming
> > should be forbidden :) use the standard data types - they are more
> > specific than "int". for example, Int32 = 32 bit integer.
>
> C and C++ standards guarantee the sizes of char, short, int, and long.
> char has at least 8 bits, short has at least 16, long has at least 32
> and int is somewhere between short and long.
>
> > you'll have more readability this way.
>
> To me, this:
> long i;
> unsigned short j;
>
> is more readable than this:
> Int32 i;
> UInt16 j;
>
> I guess this is a good subject to fight a holy war over :)
>
> --
> No address munging in use. I like the smell of nuked accounts in the
> morning.
>
>
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
