On Wed, 29 May 2002, John Marshall wrote:
> Interestingly, C99 added a bunch of [U]Int16-like types, and it was
> pretty controversial. Lots of people thought adding them was just
> pandering to a need that wasn't really there, for the reasons I've been
> trying to explain. But they went a lot further: C99's <stdint.h>
> (section 7.18 of the Standard) defines
>
> [u]intN_t native type of exactly N bits
> ("These types are optional. However if an implementation
> provides integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits,
> it shall define the corresponding typedef names". And you can
> supply others too: e.g. that weird machine could have int36_t)
>
> [u]int_leastN_t smallest native type of at least N bits
> [u]int_fastN_t "fastest" native type of at least N bits
> (N = 8,16,32,64 must all be provided)
>
> [u]intmax_t the biggest native type you've got
>
> and there's all kinds of other things in there, including macros to tell
> you what exists.
this is *good* stuff :)
i for one would vote for something along these lines :) the only
problem is that we would need to have different declarations for
each CPU type - and, with ARM emulating m68k; which size is better? :P
but yes John, you are 100% correct - someones coding standard was
being satisfied; not the overall view of the community itself :) if
only the experts-forum existed back then - we could have voted :P
// az
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ardiri.com/
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
