I propose that we change
ink64 - int64
inku64 - uint64
ink32 - int32
inku32 - uint32
ink16 - int16
inku16 - uint16
ink8 - int8
inku8 - uint8
because
1) we decided to move from ink - ts
2) tsu64 doesn't scan like an integer
3) int64_t is long on linux which is incompatible with %lld the
On 05/19/2010 08:23 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
I propose that we change
ink64 - int64
inku64 - uint64
ink32 - int32
inku32 - uint32
ink16 - int16
inku16 - uint16
ink8 - int8
inku8 - uint8
because
1) we decided to move from ink - ts
2) tsu64 doesn't scan like an integer
3) int64_t is
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
typedef long long int int64;
typedef int int32;
typedef short int16;
typedef char int8;
etc.
which work on every system and which permit seamless
On 05/19/2010 09:14 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
typedef long long int int64;
typedef int int32;
typedef short int16;
typedef char int8;
etc.
On 05/19/2010 10:31 AM, Bryan Call wrote:
On 05/19/2010 09:14 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
typedef long long int int64;
typedef int int32;
typedef
+1, against type casting for this
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Bryan Call bc...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On 05/19/2010 09:14 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
+1
Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 11:31:50 AM, you wrote:
On 05/19/2010 09:14 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
typedef long long int int64;
typedef int int32;
Late but
+1
-George
On 5/19/10 9:57 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On 05/19/2010 10:31 AM, Bryan Call wrote:
On 05/19/2010 09:14 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
Yes we will change INXXX_MAX etc.
Unfortunately int64 is not standard. So we have a couple alternatives.
1) use nonstandard types where
