On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:33:05PM -0200, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote: > I also have no problem to step back and use 'long long', if _we_ > choose to reconsider that. IMHO, the fact that Lua 5.3 is using 'long > long' is a good argument for that. I do prefer explicit width type, > but my main argument is that 'long long' width could be lesser than 64 > bit.
Using long long is as arbitrary as using int64_t. The only reasonable other choice would be intmax_t (and I'm suprised Lua did not pick that). However, none of these make a difference with any of the currently supported architectures, so this argument is of cosmetic nature. Martin