I agree with Char vs. char. The type "int" is another matter, this is a fault of the C standard (given its original definition as the native word size on the computer). Given the change to the ARM processor, int as defined is not a terribly good choice (I assume it becomes 4-byte by default there). When you consider portability then the arguments against C's definition of int are very compelling.
I would prefer people use "short" and "long" (and their unsigned bretheren) than "int" myself. I can live with terms like "ushort" and "ulong" as well. (I actually like Java where they made short, int, and long defined lengths - that is more coherent, and gets rid of the "long long" nonsense that people have kludged up to support 8-byte integer entities...) That the convention is "Int16" and the like may not be the greatest, but when in Rome... At 12:01 AM 5/27/2002 -0700, John Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There's really IMHO no compelling argument for using "Char" instead of >"char". There's certainly no compelling argument for using "Int16" etc >instead of "int" etc, but there are compelling technical arguments for >using "int" etc instead of "Int16" etc in many circumstances. ---- Tom Frauenhofer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.beret.com "Playing harp takes lots of pluck, a love of music, and a pick-up truck." - Valentine Frauenhofer -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
