Re: Short?

Danny Angus wrote: >>would you not find a spreadsheet that mysteriously crashed excel (or had >>hidden incorrect values) MORE annoying? >> >> > >Yes. > > Then the casting the shorts is better ;-) >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: >For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: Short?

> would you not find a spreadsheet that mysteriously crashed excel (or had > hidden incorrect values) MORE annoying? Yes. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: Short?

would you not find a spreadsheet that mysteriously crashed excel (or had hidden incorrect values) MORE annoying? Workaround: subclass and provide less safe methods ;-) On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 17:22, Danny Angus wrote: > > So basically if the file format can only hold a short, better to

RE: Short?

> So basically if the file format can only hold a short, better to annoy > you with a cast then to annoy you with an overflow or > MAX_VALUE type error. I thought it might be that, it *does* annoy me though, quite a lot.. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PRO

Re: Short?

gt; > > > This is done for safety. If the underlying structure is written as a short you the user should be aware that you must fit within the bounds of a short. I think as time moves on more of these will become ints as we've discovered some of these are actually unsigned shorts

Short?

If this has been asked a million times before I'm sorry, Why are so many arguments shorts, not ints ? d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: