On Sep 8, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > >> I actually like having the typedefs in these situations even if >> there is a portable alternative. It makes it clear what the purpose >> of the variable is, if everything is just labeled double, int or >> long int you don't know immediately what it represents. For example >> PetscErrorCode and PetscLogDouble (maybe a bad name) or >> PetscClassId. We started with int for PetscErrorCode and I found >> changing it really clarified the source code. >> >> For these we could use PetscObjectState, PetscObjectId, or something >> else. > > I have no problem with typedefs based on _intent_, but it may be that > Petsc64bitUInt is unnecessary. If stdint.h is now ubiquitious enough, > then we just use > > typedef uint64_t PetscObjectId;
Sure, this is just a configure/what systems people are using now issue. I do note that in my reading Microsoft NEVER plans to support C99 (except parts that are in the C++ standards) so we can never switch to C99? http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/ Barry
