On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> wrote: > Am 17.11.13 04:36, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto: >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@zoulas.com> >> wrote: >>> On Nov 16, 9:30pm, lourival.n...@gmail.com (Lourival Vieira Neto) wrote: >>> -- Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t >>> >>> | On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> >>> wrote: >>> | > In article <52872b0c.5080...@msys.ch>, Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> >>> wrote: >>> | >>Changing the number type to int64_t is certainly a good idea. Two >>> | >>questions, however: >>> | > >>> | > Why not intmax_t? >>> | >>> | My only argument is that int64_t has a well-defined width and, AFAIK, >>> | intmax_t could vary. But I have no strong feelings about this. Do you >>> | think intmax_t would be better? >>> >>> Bigger is better. And you can use %jd to print which is a big win. >> >> I agree that bigger is better and %jd is much better then "%" PRI/SCN. >> But don't you think that to know the exact width is even better? > > You can always use sizeof if the need to know the size arises.
I mean know it as a script programmer. I think that would be helpful to know the exact lua_Number width when you are writing a script. AFAIK, you don't have sizeof functionality from Lua. So, IMHO, lua_Number width should be fixed and documented. Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto
